







PRESENTED BY 




















\ 


/ 


moiana 

h 


Hivn 


i 


Serv 


PD 






/ 


Document No. l. 


Report of the Sub-Committee Appointed by the Executive Com¬ 
mittee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association, to 
Examine into the Civil Service of the Benevolent Institu¬ 
tions of Indiana. 


To the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Beform Association : 

Gentlemen —Up to the present time your Committee has been able to 
examine into the condition of the Civil Service in only one of our benevolent 
institutions, viz.: The Indiana Hospital for the Insane. 

This institution is the seventh largest in the world. It contains 1,566 
patients, and employs 336 persons. The estimated value of its real and 
personal property is $1,615,447.34, and the amount appropriated for main¬ 
tenance, repairs, etc, of the past year, was $347,500. The general 
control and management of the Hospital is intrusted to a board of three 
trustees, who have authority to appoint a Superintendent and such other 
officers as may be needed. The President of the Insane Hospital Board is 
also the presiding officer and third Trustee of the Blind Asylum and Deaf 
and Dumb Asylum Boards. The incumbent trustees of the Insane Hospital 
are Thomas H. Harrison (President of the Board), P. M Gapen and B. H. 
Burrell. The Superintendent is William B. Fletcher, M. D. 

THE SPOILS SYSTEM. 

The act under which this Hospital is operated is political in its charac¬ 
ter, and the management of it has been conducted upon the political or 
spoils system. No examination is held to ascertain the fitness of persons 
appointed to service therein. Democrats only receive appointments. 
Places are given for political reasons. Legislative influence is courted by 



> » > 



































the appointment of many relatives and friends of Democratic members of 
the General Assembly, especially in the Senate. Senators Green Smith, 
Faulkner, Howard, McClure, Hilligass, Bell, Duncan, Bailey, Fowler, and 
many others, have had one or more relatives and friends thus chosen. Sen¬ 
ator Faulkner alone secured the appointment of a daughter, nephew, three 
neices and a number of attendants. Letters are written by direction of the 
Board to various members of the Legislature, asking them to send some one 
to the asylum for appointment. Boone county, the residence of Dr. Harrison, 
sends nineteen employes to the asylum, while about one-half the counties 
are not represented at all. The traffic in place has been reduced 
to a system, and is carried on to such an extent as to become a public 
scandal. Had the Trustees, at the time of their appointment, entered 
into a corrupt bargain with the members of the Legislature for their posi¬ 
tions, the reciprocation of favors could not have been more cordial and en¬ 
during than it is. While some of the appointees are worthy and compe¬ 
tent, many of them have been wholly unfit for the positions for which 
they were selected ; and a number of them have been found so grossly 
incompetent, that they have been obliged to leave. Even for the technical 
and responsible position of physician, men are thus chosen without special 
qualifications or previous experience to fit them for the place. Many of 
these employes are active political workers. Subscriptions are circulated 
among them, and funds raised for campaign and other political purposes. 
Money has been thus raised to prosecute the Democratic campaign in Boone 
county, where Dr. Harrison, President of the Board, resides. The politics 
of Wayne township, Marion county, is largely controlled by the employes 
of the hospital in the “matter of selecting delegates to Democratic conven¬ 
tions. A number of employes of the institution were recently delegates at 
such a convention. An acti\% agitation was maintained among the em¬ 
ployes of the institution in respect to the recent Bynum and Bailey contro¬ 
versy. On the day of the first Democratic Congressional Convention, the 
hospital was almost deserted by the employes and the attendants. One or 
more of them have been candidates for Democratic nomination for polit¬ 
ical office, and have been vigorously canvassing in their own behalf while 
in the service of the hospital; for example: M. F. Kelly, a night attendant 
and candidate for Representative. Additional places have been made for 
political workers. M. L. Stansbury, formerly book and store-keeper, had 
politicians foisted upon him as assistants, until it took three men to do 
the work previously performed by a single assistant. As an instance of 
the political qualifications necessary for appointment, it may be stated that 
when one Mr. Gibson applied for regular employment at the asylum, Mr. 
Gapen, one of the Trustees, found fault with him, and said that he did not 
vote the straight Democratic ticket. Mr. Gibson then got parties to certify 
that he was a Democrat. Most of those who furnish the bulk of supplies to 
the asylum appear to be Democrats, and a number of them are prom- • 
inent politicians in that party. For example: Hon. Franklin Landers and 
J. J. Cooper, Treasurer of State, sell hogs to the asylum, and John E. Sulli¬ 
van, candidate for Clerk of Marion County, is the most successful Ibidder. 

The results are such as might be expected from such a system—(1), care¬ 
less and unbusiness like methods pervading the entire organization from 
the Board of Trustees down, with (2) much favoritism, corruption and ineffi 
ciency, and (3) constantly recurring cases of neglect and cruelty toward the 
unfortunate inmates of the hospital. Let us particularize: An inspection of 
the minutes of the Board, made in July last, disclosed the fact that P. M. 
Gapen, one of the Trustees, had been present at only one meeting since Octo- 




Gift 

Association 

FES 28 J9l6 


3 


ber, 1885. He is said to be managing a saw-mill in Arkansas. An allowance of 
$150, for salary, made to him at the meeting of July 8th, 1886, would not 
indicate that his compensation as Trustee had been reduced in consequence 
of his absence. The law requires the Trustees to adopt a code of by-laws 
and regulations for the management of the hospital. The Board entered 
upon its duties in February, 1883, yet in August, 1885, it was necessary for 
the Superintendent to remind them, in his monthly report that they had for¬ 
gotten to comply with this law, and that it was impossible to manage the 
hospital without such regulations. Even after this report, no by-laws were 
adopted until January, 1886, nearly three years after the organization of the 
Board. The minutes further disclose the fact that a great number of 
changes among the employes of the hospital are being continually ordered 
by the Board of Trustees. For instance: At the meeting of June 3d, 
1885, the discharge of eleven employes was ordered; in September, 1885, 
three more; in October, 1885, fourteen more, etc. On December 1st, 1885, 
Dr. Fletcher, Superintendent, reports : 

“ I was not able to make all the changes provided by you at the October meet¬ 
ing. To have done so would have been injurious to the hospital. I have, there¬ 
fore, reduced the help gradually until the desired change should be accomplished.” 

Yet in January, 1886, further changes were made. These discharges 
appear to be for the purpose of making room for other applicants. Superin¬ 
tendent Fletcher, in another report, says: 

“There are a large number of persons demanding places in the hospital, and, 
if any changes are desired by the Board, I hope they will be made at this meeting, 
and that a rule be adopted that may stand as an answer to all future applicants, 
that no change will be made except for violation of rules or incompetency.” 

Of the 336 attendants and other employes of the asylum, more than 
four-fifths have been changed during the three years of the present adminis¬ 
tration. 

The minutes of the Board also disclose a great deal of discord among 
the Trustees themselves regarding these changes, as well as in other respects. 
The Board proposed to remove Mr. Stansbury, book and store-keeper, and 
the latter resigned October 26th, 1883. Dr. Tarleton opposed the accept¬ 
ance of the resignation, but it was accepted, and Dr. Tarleton thereupon 
resigned as Treasurer of the Board. It may be inferred from a statement 
made by Dr. Tarleton, that the removal of Captain Stansbury was the 
result of a conspiracy. Dr. Tarleton said that soot or ashes (another in¬ 
formant says lamp-black), was put into the butter by some one in order to 
prove that Captain Stansbury was incompetent for his position, in that he 
accepted adulterated or spoiled supplies. At any rate, the appointment of 
J. S. Hall, as book and store-keeper, was confirmed, Dr. Tarleton voting in 
the negative. 

The minutes also disclose many disagreements in reference to the allow¬ 
ance of claims against the Asylum. Thus, at the meeting in October, 1885, 
four different claims were allowed in spite of Mr. Gapen’s opposition. 

THE CONTRACT SYSTEM. 

The system under which contracts are let is defective in many particulars. 
Your committee were informed by Mr. Burrell, one of the Trustees, that in the 
matter of stationery they had to make a requisition upon the State Board of 
Printing, at prices higher than the same stationery could be procured in the 
market, He gave as an instance some writing pads which he showed us, 


4 


which cost sixty cents at the State Board of Printing, and which could be pro¬ 
cured from Cathcart & Cleland for forty cents. The present law in relation 
to the State Board of Printing seems to be the cause of this difficulty. 

Mr. Burrell further stated that the system of purchasing was not as cheap 
as could be devised It would be easy for the dealers in any particular line 
to combine on prices. There were usually only three bidders in the dry goods 
trade and they could easily combine if they wanted to. He thought the asy¬ 
lum would do better if it could buy outside of the State. 

The system upon which bids are let appears to be very defective in an¬ 
other respect. The book and store keeper, Mr. Hall, makes out, each month, 
an estimate of the different articles which will be needed for the asylum, 
specifying each particular article and the probable amount of each required. 
All the items of any particular class of goods, such as groceries, provisions, 
dry goods, etc., are embraced in one requisition, and these requisitions are 
hung up in the rooms of the Supreme Court from six to ten days before the 
bids are made. The bids are opened the last Friday of each month. A sep¬ 
arate estimate is made upon each article and the total is footed up. The con 
tract is then awarded to the bidder whose total is the lowest upon all the goods 
of his particular class. But the contract provides that the bidder shall furnish 
the articles named in his requisition, “ more or less,” at the prices specified, 
and the asylum can require more, or accept less of any given article than the 
amount named in the requisition. Mr. Burrell told us that the footings were 
often erroneous; he thought sometimes intentionally so, for the purpose of se¬ 
curing the contract, but that the board usually corrected these errors before 
awarding the contract. But apart from this, it is evident that under such a 
system the contract might easily be given, not to the lowest, but to the high 
e 3 t bidder, if the book-keeper, who prepares the estimate, should act in col¬ 
lusion with the bidder. The amount required of some articles might be 
under estimated and others over estimated, and by apportioning a higher- 
price to the under estimated articles and a lower price to the others, the total 
bid would be lower, while as to the goods, which are actually required, the 
price would be considerably higher Mr. Hall, the book and store-keeper, fur¬ 
ther informed us that there were some instances in which the contracts were 
not, in fact, given to the lowest bidder, on account of differences in the char¬ 
acter of the goods, etc. So that the awarding of contracts is a matter resting 
almost entirely in the discretion of the board, and upon the good faith of 
the book and store-keeper, and his assistants, who compare the articles fur 
nished with the requisitions and samples, so far as this is done at all. From 
Mr. Hall we also learned that frequently a successful bidder sends word that 
he can not carry out his contract, and then Mr. Hall fills the gap by making 
purchases without calling for competition, as the law requires. 

Another feature of the contract system involves, as it seems to us, such 
extravagance as to imperatively demand remedial legislation, if, indeed, 
anything more is required than the interpretation of a doubtful statute. 
Instead of combining the requisitions for supplies made by the several 
Superintendents of the Insane Hospital, Deaf and Dumb Asylum and 
the Blind Asylum, and advertising for bids on the supplies in bulk, the 
supplies for each institution are bought separately, and, therefore, more 
dearly; and yet the bids are opened at the same time, in the same room and by 
the same persons. Nominally, there are three meetings—one by each board, 
respectively; practically, there is only one. It generally happens that bids 
on articles which are used in common by these institutions, such as meats, 
groceries, dry goods, etc., differ considerably. 

Again, although the Superintendent nominally approves the estimates 


5 


and requisitions, audits the accounts and formerly signed the vouchers, it ap¬ 
pears that this is merely a perfunctory act upon his part. In his report for 
July, 1885, the Superintendent “protests against the absurd formality, which 
is neither required by law nor morality, of signing vouchers as being correct 
of which he can not have any knowledge*” 

In his report for November, 1885, he says: 

“ I would ask the board to define my relation to the department of hospital 
supplies. Besides the matter of making monthly estimates, has the Superintendent 
any authority, alter the Board has made contracts,, to order the rejection of any of 
the goods for any cause ? By what law is the Superintendent compelled to sign 
vouchers as being correct when he can not know, neither having made the contracts 
nor having inspected the goods?” 

After this date, Hall inspected the vouchers. 


JOHN E. SULLIVAN. 


These expressions led your Committee to inquire whether there might 
not be some improprieties in the making of contracts or the acceptance of 
goods, for which the Superintendent was unwilling to be responsible. An 
examination of the minutes of the Board revealed some matters in relation 
to supplies which your Committee consider very remarkable. They show 
that in regard to certain lines of goods of which the hospital requires sup¬ 
plies regularly every month, such as produce, groceries, dry goods, etc., a 
certain few among the bidders seem to have been pretty constantly success¬ 
ful Thus, in the matter of produce, most of the contracts appear to have 
been awarded to one John E. Sullivan, and the minutes show that his claims 
for the following amounts were allowed by the Board upon the following 
dates respectively : 


May 10, 1883 .$ 587 87 February 10, 1885 .$1,336 42 

July 5, 1883 . 1,078 54 March 5, 1885 . 1,129 68 

August 31, 1883 . 1,044 42 April 9, 1885 . 1,544 28 

October 4, 1883 . 843 65 June 3, 1885 957 20 

October 31, 1883 . 1,013 59 July 3, 1885 . 1,138 84 

December, 1883 . 1,658 15 September 14, 1885. 1,479 53 

January 10, 1884 . 364 80 October 20, 1885 . 167 25 

February 7, 1884 . 1,037 59 December 1, 1885 ..... 1,645 4/ 

May 8, 1884 . 985 16 January 7, 1886 .. 1,415 25 

June 5, 1884 . 910 08 February 4, 1886 . 1,234 40 

October 31, 1884. 1,426 64 March 4, 1886 . 158 16 

December 4, 1884 . 2,048 52 July 8, 1886 . 738 (9 

January 8, 1885 . 476 25 


The claim of $476.25, allowed January 8th, 1885, had been presented to 
a former Board of Trustees, consisting of John Fishback, B. F. Spann and 
R. II. Tarleton, at a meeting held May 4th, 1882, and disallowed by that 
Board, as shown by the following extract from the minutes: 


“ The amount claimed by J. E. Sullivan, included a charge for 3,175 lbs. of 
butter, which, upon investigation, the Board believes to be oleomargarine or some 
other kind of manufactured butter instead of that required by the contract. The 
Board allowed the claim after deducting fifteen cents per pound, as shown by 
Voucher No. 254, of this date.” 

After his claim was disallowed, Mr. John E. Sullivan made open politi¬ 
cal war upon Mr. Fishback, and the other members of the Board. He lobbied 
actively in the corridors of the Legislature for the passage of the Brown 




















6 


Bill, which was to legislate his enemies out, and, after its passage, gave a din¬ 
ner to his friends in honor of the event. Then Mr. Sullivan presented his 
rejected claim to the new Board, and the claim was paid by them, although 
more than eighteen months had elapsed since it had been disallowed by the 
old Board, under whose management the supplies were furnished. 

Your Committee are informed that, at one time, Sullivan bid upon but¬ 
ter and did not furnish it, and refused to furnish it when called upon so to 
do. That the store-keeper, Captain Stansbury, went into the market and 
bought it at a higher rate, charging Sullivan the difference. That Harrison 
forbade Stansbury to charge this difference to Sullivan, but that Tarleton 
insisted, and the charge was sustained. Mr. Sullivan is an influential politi¬ 
cal supporter of Dr. Harrison. 

Mr. Arthur Jordan, a large dealer in wholesale produce, and a compet¬ 
ing bidder, says: 

“The first instance that I recollect in which, being the lowest bidder, I was not 
awarded the contract, was early in the Harrison management. The claim was 
made that I had not put in any samples of the butter to be furnished. I know we 
were the lowest bidders—for I was told so by the steward, Capt. Stansbury—but 
that our bid was rejected because we had no samples of the butter to be furnished. 
Previous to that time no samples had been required. 

The next month I submitted samples, although no other samples were exhib¬ 
ited there except mine; still the contract was given again to J. E. Sullivan. I was 
told that I was the lowest bidder. The butter was rejected because one tub, in 
their judgment, was a little too salty. At all events, the contract was given to Mr. 
Sullivan for that month. * His bid was submitted for good butter, according to the 
requisition, and so was mine, and our bids on that grade were very close together. 
There were other bidders, I think. But that month they threw out both of our 
bids on good butter, and awarded him a contract for creamery butter at 25 cents a 
pound. The requisition was for country butter, and they gave him the contract. 
I think my bid for country butter that month was for 10 cents a pound. I do not 
know whether there were other bids than mine. They did not let the contract for 
any kind of butter that month, but bought the creamery butter of Sullivan at 25 
cents a pound. Then the newspapers got hold of that in connection with some 
other things, and Hines wrote up the whole matter in the Journal. Those articles 
came out just before the letting of the contracts of the next month, and on that oc¬ 
casion they gave me a contract for that month. In that month I do not know 
whether I was the lower bidder. But they did not call on me for any butter until 
between the 10th and 15th of the next month. In the meantime Sullivan furnished 
butter up to that time in my month, at 25 cents a pound, and he put in 10-cent 
country butter at 25 cents a pound. 

Q. Will you please state how you know that ? 

A. I had not furnished a contract for them, and so I went out to the asylum 
with the first load to see if everything was satisfactory. I asked them to let me 
see some of Sullivan’s butter. The steward, Mr. Hall, told me they had not any of 
Sullivan’s butter left, and that they had used it up clean. So I waited awhile for 
the driver and them to weigh the butter. While waiting there, some one drove up 
with some beef, and they opened the cellar to put it in. I stepped inside, and found 
a tub full of butter with “ fancy butter ” printed on the tubs. I asked them if they 
had not overlooked that. I asked the store-room man there—this man Roth. He 
said he did not know it was there. I asked him to let me look at it, to see what 
kind of grade butter it was. So we opened one of the tubs, and I tried it with the 
tryer. I found it a very common kind of country butter, which at that time, I 
think, could be bought at 6 and 8 cents a pound, and he was furnishing it at 25 
cents a pound as creamery butter. That same plan was carried out afterwards very 
frequently. In the letting of bids the contract would be let for creamery butter, 


and at the extreme market price, and the contract would be filled with country but¬ 
ter ; but of course no responsible bidder, that was bound to furnish what he had 
agreed to furnish, could put in this cheaper grade of butter. Therefore, necessarily 
he could not compete against that kind of bids. 

Q. State some other instances of that kind, if you know any? 

A. That is the only instance of which I have any definite knowledge. But I 
know by examination of butter at various times, by seeing loads that were booked 
to go to the Insane Asylum, and by seeing these tubs, that Sullivan was not putting 
in creamery butter, although the contract had been distinctly let for creamery but¬ 
ter. But that only continued through the summer months. When winter came he 
had some other expedient, and he began to put in butterine, purchased at Chicago. 
I saw the butterine at the asylum. I could tell it was furnished by him because I 
knew he had the contract for that month. I knew they were the same tubs, be¬ 
cause I had seen them pass by my store from the depot and hauled to his store, and 
afterwards delivered to the Insane Asylum. The matter went so far that Hall 
stated to me that they had been receiving butterine, and Hall said he did not care 
whether it was butterine or butter, so long as they did not kick in the wards. The 
consequence was we could not get any contract unless we would take it at a price 
at which we would be compelled to put in a very inferior grade of poor butter, and 
the risk to any one, except the initiated, was so great that no one would care to take 
a contract on those terms. 

Q. How long has he furnished butterine in that way ? 

A. The first time that I know, of my own knowledge, that butterine was fur¬ 
nished, at least that he began to put it in regularly on the regular contract, was 
early this last winter. That is as far back as I can recollect. 

Q. How do you know it was butterine ? 

A. I had seen these tubs, and had seen them out there. There is considera¬ 
ble difference in the appearance of tubs of butterine and butter. Further, the but¬ 
terine is put up in an attractive style, while creamery butter is not. The Chicago 
price of creamery butter being 80 cents per pound, and knowing that the Chicago 
price controls the market here, we know that creamery butter can not be sold at 22 
cents, but that butterine can be sold at the latter price. I have had occasion to 
examine the butterine in the tubs. I am an expert, and know it to be butterine. 

Sullivan is not the only man that has put that in. There is a man at Columbia 
City who has had three or four contracts in the last year. He put in butterine that 
came direct from Chicago here on those contracts. One month this man from 
Columbia City ran short, and they came around and bought some butter of me. I 
showed them some butterine also, and Hall said: “ I guess I know what that is, 
we have used that out there.” I then said to him, “Why don’t you come out like 
a man and put in your requisitions for butterine,” and he said, “You know that 
would not do, because the newspapers would get hold of it and blow us up on it.” 
Sullivan has been frequently permitted to remain in the room while they were let¬ 
ting the bids. I know of his being in there several times. He remained in there 
after they had locked the door.” 

The Superintendent’s Report for May, 1885, contains the following: 

“In relation to the purchase of produce at the last Friday in April, I objected 
to both bids, as it was far above the highest retail price. This can be seen by referring to 
the bids of Budd and Sullivan. I asked as a favor that neither bid be accepted, as 
I desired to save from $200 to $300 for investments in amusements and ward deco¬ 
rations for the patients. To this I understood the President to agree, and he told 
Mr. Sullivan that we had so determined. I then took bids and closed with Howard 
Duffy, Columbus, Ind., at nearly one-half less than the lowest bid offered. Thus far 
the eggs and poultry have been better than any ever used in the hospital since we 


t 


8 

have been here, and the butter was not mixed and gave about the same satisfaction 
as the best creamery, so called, that we paid 28 cents for. 

“Now comes John Sullivan and says that he has got the contract for the pro¬ 
duce, and is ordered to deliver the same. I, having no such directions from the 
Board of Trustees, have refused to recognize Mr. Sullivan’s demands. I now wish 
to know the will of the Board, and will gladly acknowledge my error and correct 
the same. I respectfully suggest that if economy and quality are objects worth 
considering in this Institution, that the Board authorize the Steward or the Super¬ 
intendent, or go themselves twice a week and purchase by selection and bids all 
vegetables, fruit, butter, and eggs. It is in this way only that we can insure good 
and fresh materials at the most reasonable rates.” 

In point of fact, Sullivan got the contract and the pay for the butter at 
his own price. 

An examination of the books reveals that in the month of May, 1885, in 
which Mr. Sullivan had the contract for furnishing butter to the hospital, at 
twenty-six cents a pound, butter had been purchased, in small quantities, 
of Robinson, at twenty-five cents, and also in large quantities from Howard 
Duffy, of Columbus, at sixteen cents. Your committee inquired of Mr. Hall, 
the book and store keeper, as to the butter furnished, and were informed 
that there had been some trouble in the butter contract, and that Mr. Hall 
had had the butter examined by Mr. Hurty, the chemist; that some of it was 
found to be pure and some of it was found to contain lard and other ingredi¬ 
ents ; that these ingredients appeared in the butter furnished by Mr. Sullivan, 
as well as in that furnished by other parties, Your committee visited the asy¬ 
lum in July, when the butter was furnished by one Krouse, of Columbia City, 
and inquired of Mr. Roth, assistant store-keeper, and Mr. Burrell, one of the 
trustees, whether any of the butterine had been left over from the June sup¬ 
plies, for the purpose of testing and examining it themselves, but were told 
by Mr. Roth that none of it was left It seems, however, that on that very 
morning, butter, infested with maggots, had been concealed in the sewer 
beneath the store-room, to avoid the inspection of your committee. The 
butter (or butterine) had been furnished in June, by John E. Sullivan, and 
had been accepted. The reports of subsistence, made to the Superintendent 
and quoted hereafter, also show that the butter served in June was frequent¬ 
ly of very poor quality, but your committee were unable to find any deduc¬ 
tions made in the claims of Mr. Sullivan, for butter, on account of furnish¬ 
ing an inferior article. Mr. Gibson, who was an assistant book-keeper prior 
to April, 1884, frequently saw the butter furnished by Sullivan, and states 
that it was oleomargarine. The instance of Mr. Sullivan is only one among 
many similar cases. 

OTHER PROSPEROUS BIDDERS. 

Another prosperous bidder is the firm of D. P. Erwin & Co., formerly 
Johnson & Erwin. Out of twenty-four bills of goods sold by this firm to the 
asylum, which were examined by your Committee, eighteen bills bore the 
statement that they had been sold by one Goulding. Your Committee learn 
that this Mr. Goulding is a son-in-law of P. M. Gapen, one of the Trustees. 
The concurrent action of Mr. Goulding’s employment by this firm, and of 
Mr. Gapen’s presence upon the Board seem to have given a strong impetus 
to the success of the firm in furnishing supplies to the asylum. 

Another business house which was remarkably successful in under¬ 
bidding competitors was that of Mr. Kreitlein, afterwards Kreitlein & 
Schrader. Mr. Gibson, who was one of the store-keepers in the institution 
for about a year, says that Kreitlein furnished a large number of articles for 


9 


the asylum which did not correspond with the specifications at all, and were 
of greatly inferior quality. The witness saw barrels of apples where the top 
of the barrel contained apples of one kind, and the bottom apples of 
another kind, altogether inferior and different. 

“ Dr. Fletcher directed these apples to be returned, but Kreitlein sent them 
back to the asylum, and they were afterwards accepted by Hall, the steward, and 
by Gapen, one of the Trustees. Nearly all that Kreitlein sent was in very bad con¬ 
dition. Goods were received over Dr. Fletcher’s condemnation again and again. 
1 hey were simply sent there and left. He would make complaints nearly every 
month, but they were not heeded. Gapen and Harrison accepted the goods over 
the protest of Tarleton, the other Trustee. Kreitlein’s rice was inferior. It was 
not the rice which was bid for. His prunes were very bad, and his coffee was bad.” 

Dr. Tarleton, formerly one of the Trustees, states that he often protested 
against the acceptance of hospital supplies which did not conform to con¬ 
tract. Many other irregularities were shown. 

J. Francis Burt, of the Brooks Oil Co., 60 South Pennsylvania street, 
stated that upon two separate occasions the Brooks Oil Co. had bid for a 
certain quality of oil for the Indiana Hospital for the Insane, and that the 
contract had been let to other parties, and that in each instance another and 
inferior quality of oil had been furnished, and not the one required in the 
specifications. That they were unable to get the contract for the use of their 
own oil. He knew of an instance where a kind of grease was bid for which 
was worth fifty cents and on that specification another was furnished and 
accepted which was worth fifteen cents. 

Mr. Gibson also confirms the above. It seems, however, that in one of 
the above cases the inferior oil was not paid for. 

Christian Schrader, on South Pennsylvania street, says that upon a bid 
and specification for Lexington Mustard, worth thirty cents, Durham Mus¬ 
tard was furnished, worth about eighteen cents. That he examined the 
mustard, and also examined the specification, and hence knows this. That 
this Durham Mustard was accepted by Hall. 

j. s. HALL. 

The Hospital for the Insane purchases about $20,000 worth of supplies 
every month. These pass through the hands of Mr. Hall. His qualifications 
for the important position which he holds, that gives him practical control 
of the supply department, are thus stated in a protest filed by Dr. Tarleton 
with the Board of Trustees, and appearing upon the minutes: 

“It became my duty some months ago to protest against the appointment of 
J. S. Hall as book and store-keeper of this institution. Believing that my experience 
in hospital matters gave me a fair knowledge of what the necessary qualifications 
Should be to fit a person for so important a position as book and store-keeper; and 
believing that the said Mr. Hall was entirely unqualified for said place, I opposed 
his appointment in every honorable way I knew how, but the majority ruled, and 
he was appointed. I have more feeling in this appointment than upon any of the 
other acts of the Board in which I have been in the minority, some of which in¬ 
stances I have had an opportunity to talk about and vote upon, whilst others were 
settled in my absence, and I was allowed to acquiesce or fruitlessly object to. As I 
have always been in attendance on all regular or called meetings, I feel that I have 
not shown a disposition to shirk responsibility, and now, believing more fully than 
ever, that the said Mr. Hall is not qualified for the place, it becomes my duty to 
enter my protest at this time against the further retention of the said J. S. Hall as 
book-keeper, and ask that he be requested to resign within ten days, for the follow¬ 
ing reasons: 


10 


1. As book-keeper he does not keep the books, but others keep them for him. 
Some of the books and records are imperfect and mutilated; besides, we have been 
paying others to do the work he should have done. 

2. As storekeeper he does not receive and inspect the goods purchased in but 
very few instances during the month, and can not properly judge of them when he 
does receive them, which, fact of not being present, and inability to compare the 
goods with the samples when present, renders it necessary to employ and pay oth¬ 
ers to do the work he should have done, all of which is against economy and good 
management. 

3. That he is supercilious, and arrogates to himself authority that does not 
belong to him, which leads to mismanagement and bad government, such as mis¬ 
statements in regard to the sanitary condition of the hospital; assuming the power 
to employ and discharge and fix wages, and to purchase goods without authority. 
He has spoken in a manner unbecoming an officer, of his superiors other than the 
Superintendent, to an extent absolutely insubordinate. 

4. That his carlessness of disposing of the castaway property does not increase 
the earnings account as it should. 

Now, gentlemen, if you think you can afford, and are determined to submit to, 
the retention of Mr. Hall, after so long a trial and positive proof of his inability, I 
must again protest. Incompetency leads to extravagance and useless expenditure of 
the funds entrusted to us by a more then generous public. I appeal to you, gentle¬ 
men, in the name of a Democratic Board of Trustees, to join with me in the matter, 
which if not corrected at once must lead to disaster to the management. 

Respectfully submitted, 

R. H. TARLETON.” 

Dr. R. H. Tarletojn voted to put the above protest into effect, and Dr. 
Harrison and P. M. Gapen objected. 

From many facts reported to your committee, it appears to us that the 
foregoing protest of Dr. Tarleton had a strong basis of fact and was dictated 
by an earnest desire for the welfare of the hospital. Dr. Tarleton, however, 
soon ceased to be a member of the Board of Trustees. After the foregoing 
statements, it seems to us almost unnecessary to say that Mr. Hall is an ac¬ 
tive political worker and is said to have rendered important services in the 
passage of the Brown Bill. 

A MISSING DISCOUNT. 

Before leaving the subject of contracts and hospital supplies, your commit¬ 
tee are compelled to note an unexplained irregularity. In 1883 the hospital 
advertised for bids on upholsterer’s hair Your committee are informed that 
the bids were received but set aside, and that P. M. Gapen, Trustee, and W. 
B. Fletcher, Superintendent, were authorized to make the purchase; that a 
contract was closed with Mellen & Co., of New York, for $2,590.75; and that 
there was to be a discount or drawback of 2J per cent, for cash in thirty days. 
Your committee are further informed that the goods were delivered and ac¬ 
cepted, and paid for within thirty days. It seems, however, that the dis¬ 
count or drawback was not accounted for. More than one year afterwards 
Samuel A. Brokaw, Secretary for the Superintendent, wrote to Mellen & Co. 
for an explanation. The following letter was received in reply: 

New York, March 2d, 1885. 

Samuel A. Brokazv, Seeretary, Indiana Hospital for the Insane , Indianapolis , hid.: 

Dear Sir—In reply to your letter of the 26th ult, we state that on the 10th of 
January, 1884, we sent you a check payable to the order of the Indiana Hospital 
for the Insane for $64.77, for a discount on a bill that you had settled for at about 
that time, and had overlooked the matter of discount. The check was paid and 
endorsed by “P. M. Gapen, Treas.” We remain, very truly, Mellen & Co. 


11 


Your Committee regret to say that an examination of the books of the 
Treasurer of State and of the reports of the Asylum, fails to show that Mr. 
Gapen has accounted for this money. 

In response to inquiries addressed to Mr. Gapen, who is in Fort Smith, 
Arkansas, Mr. Gapen said he did not remember the transaction, was sure it 
was accounted for, and would look it up when he retuaned to Indiana next 
month (October). 

EXTRAVAGANCE OF THE BOARD. 

The management of the Asylum reveals extravagance and waste in many 
ways. 

In his report for March, 1885, Dr. Fletcher says: 

“A special question is: Shall the Superintendent have power to make out esti¬ 
mates for materials that are required for the management and maintenance of the 
hospital, or not ? Some very clear definitions upon this matter would be a great 
relief. For example, in February the Board, upon requisition, had purchased a num¬ 
ber of curtains, these being without rings or means of attachment. The latter articles 
were applied for on the second estimate aruPpromptly marked out by the Trustees. 
Without the means of attachment the curtains are of no value.” 

“Two dozen lounges had been estimated for by the supervisors and approved 
by the Superintendent, because such lounges were required by the wards, a large 
number of the former settees having been destroyed by the fire. These, although 
so much needed by patients who are feeble and obliged to sit up all day upon hard 
chairs, were likewise promptly erased.” 

In another of his reports to the board, the Superintendent states: 

“The amount of bread wasted of the kind we make is wasted on the wards at 
the rate of 2,688 pounds per month. This fact is from actual weighing made during 
the past week. The bread purchased after the fire was of uniform kind, much rel¬ 
ished by the patients, and showed almost no waste.” 

Much of the leakage appears to be due to the failure of the Trustees to 
give the matter personal supervision. Superintendent Fletcher indicates 
this in the following, which is also taken from one of his reports to the Board. 

“I consider the head of the laundry, outside of the engineer and store-keepers, 
the most responsible position, and where more money can be lost or saved than in any 
other in the institution, and I wish the Board would give some personal attention to the 
matter at this meeting , otherwise we will be compelled to return to the old plan of six 
employes to do what three would do better.” 

For some of this waste the employes seem to be responsible. Dr. 
Fletcher reports April 1, 1885: 

“The entire ironing for 750 patients is now accomplished in two days, whereas 
it requires three and one-half days to iron the clothing for about 150 employes.” 

A mere perusal of the minutes of the Board shows much carelessness in 
the manner in which they are kept; many of them are so full of erasures, 
interlineations and other mistakes as to justify the belief that such negligence 
would most likely extend to more important matters in the management of 
the Asylum. This seems to be the case. Your Committee visited the 
carpenter shop and engine room adjoining. The engine is run at a cost 
of about fifty dollars a month, and the power is almost entirely wasted. In the 
shop your Committee found absolutely nothing doing; the wheels were run¬ 
ning at full speed, but the place was empty, in a back shed were two men, 
one of whom was mending a lock. Five carpenters are employed to perform 
the work that could be done by two. 


12 


Mr. J. H. Hoffman, formerly a carpenter at the institution, states that 
while he was finishing the store-house after the recent fire, Mr. Burrell, 
one of the Trustees, sent to him, for employment, three carpenters from 
Jackson county, with a letter. They were to be paid $2.50 a day and 
boarded, which Mr. Hoffman said was more than any such mechanics got in 
this State. This was granted by the Board and paid. Mr. Hoffman pro¬ 
tested that the men were overpaid, and said they were not first-class 
mechanics. That he could get the very best workmen from the city of 
Indianapolis for $2.25 a day. and who would board themselves. Harrison 
sent two men from Lebanon. The Board discharged four men without 
notifying Hoffman, including a good mechanic whom he had brought from 
Martinsville. The Board alleged as a reason for the discharge, “lack of work 
and scarcity of funds.” Hoffman told them that that was not true, and 
resigned. Dr. Fletcher refused to accept his resignation, but he insisted 
that it be sent by Dr. Fletcher to the Board, who thereupon accepted it. A 
man from Lebanon was put in his place, whom he knew to be incompetent. 
Hoffman left the asylum in June, 1885. 

The case of Brice Martin is Another instance of favoritism. He has a 
monopoly of selling cigars and tobacco in the hospital grounds and pays 
nothing for the privilege. Light, heat aEd room are furnished to him free. 
In addition, he draws a salary as a porter but the patients perform most of 
his work. His wife is also in the employ of the asylum. Martin’s yearly 
revenue is said to nearly equal that of the Superintendent. 

On September 14, 1885, the Board reduced the wages of Mr. Roth, assist¬ 
ant store-keeper, from $75-to $60 he to board himself and vacate his room 
at the hospital. In the meeting of October an effort was made by one of the 
Trustees to suspend the order of reducing wages, and in February, 1886, to 
restore the wages to $75, but it failed. While your Committee were unable 
to ascertain all the facts leading to this reduction of wages, they believe that 
a thorough investigation by somebody with power to compel the production 
of evidence, would establish its connection with the examination and non- 
acceptance of supplies. 

The result of these irregularities has been such as to inspire widespread 
distrust of the methods of the hospital among the business men of Indian¬ 
apolis, and to keep many of them from submitting bids at all. A consider¬ 
able number of the best firms in the city refuse to have anything to do with 
contracts for the asylum. Among others, By ram, Cornelius & Co., and 
Henry Schwinge & Co., refrain from bidding on this account. 

Mr. O’Connor, of M. O’Connor & Co., wholesale dealers in groceries on 
South Meridian street, states that they stopped bidding some time ago, 
because they found that there were certain pets at the asylum who got all 
the contracts, and that there was no fair competition. We therefore believe 
that the fact that there are so few bidders, referred to by Mr. Burrell as one 
of the causes of extravagance, is in part due to the acts of the Trustees 
themselves. The Board have undoubtedly made efforts to keep down the 
expenses of the asylum, and have succeeded in measurably reducing the 
cost of maintenance per capita, but we feel sure that this has been done by 
means which has impaired the efficiency of the hospital. 

CHARACTER OF THE FOOD. 

Naturally, the character of the subsistance furnished to the patients under 
such an administration is poor. Mr. Thayer, who had been an inmate of the 
asylum for a short time, says : 


13 


“ For supper at one time the attendent put on a plate of hog meat that was just 
hog fat, with the hair sticking out of the rind. It was vile pork. When that meat 
was put on the table I called the attendant’s attention to it; he simply picked up 
the meat and put it away, and appeared to feel himself that it was not fit to eat.” 

It may be well to state in this connection that between December 9, 1884, 
and July 30, 1885, 14,213 pounds of dead hogs were sold by the asylum for 
fertilizing purposes. Most of these hogs died soon after they were purchased 
by the Board. How much diseased pork finds it way to the tables of the 
patients it is impossible to say, since the annual report contains only the record 
of the hogs which were so badly diseased that they died before the time of 
killing arrived, and were sold There is no doubt that a great deal of dis¬ 
eased meat has been consumed as food. Of over 600 hogs purchased more 
than half died. One lot were apparently “death-stricken” when delivered 
at the hospital. They began to die rapidly, and at the same time slaugh¬ 
tering went on for the tables. It was neck-and-neck between disease and 
the butcher’s knife. 

.Another evidence of the character of the articles furnished, appears in 
the daily reports of subsistence, made by the officer of the day to the Super¬ 
intendent. Your committee examined only the reports during the first twelve 
days of July, 1886, and the reports of the Women’s Department for June. 
They contain the following statements: 

June 3. Meat tainted. Coffee not good. 

June -. Some complaint of quality and preparation of meat. (It seems they 
have always boiled beef instead of roast.) 

June 13. Tea very weak. Butter not good. 

June 16. Butter not fit to use. 

June 19. Butter not good. Coffee for breakfast very weak. Subsistence other¬ 
wise moderately good. 

June 22. Not enough meat for breakfast. Cabbage for dinner and apple sauce 
for supper not well cooked. 

June 25. Not enough potatoes for dinner and not enough milk for supper. 

June 28. Some complaint about the coffee. 

In July, Men’s Department.— 

July 12. Butter in south dining room reported very bad. 

July 8. Women’s Department. Butter strong. 

July 12. Butter strong. Bread sour. 

The use of butterine has been already referred to. The quality of the 
meat and molasses is said frequently to be bad. 

CRUELTY TO PATIENTS. 

The character of the attendants procured by this political system of 
management is so low that acts of neglect and cruelty toward patients seem 
to be frequent. 

Mrs. A. C. Anglemeyer states the following circumstance, which she saw 
during a visit made to the Asylum last May: 

“As we got out of the car and were going around to Dr. Fletcher’s office, there 
was a girl there that seemed to have done something—-we did not see the start of it. 
From what we saw we thought she wanted to get into the hammock. She was walk¬ 
ing with the rest of the patients, and some one slapped her severely; it must have 
been eight or ten times in the face. It was the attendant, I suppose I am almost 
sure it was the attendant—and then she shook her severely several times. Of 
course we were not very close to her. She put her hands up in this manner (indi- 


14 


eating), and she seemed to be very much hurt. The lady that was with me reported 
it to Dr. Fletcher.” 

Mr. R. A. Merithew had a son who was a patient at the hospital, where 
he frequently visited. He says : 

“On one occasion, in the rear of the men’s hospital, I saw the patients of one 
of the wards together, and saw a man run along the line on his hands and knees. 
Another young man came up by him and kicked him severely in the side several 
times. I was then talking to one of the attendants, and called his attention to this, 
and asked him if the man who kicked the other was one of the attendants. He 
said “no,” that the man who did the kicking was not an attendant, but was one of 
the patients. I asked the attendant whether a man, who was standing by and 
looking upon this scene, was an attendant, and he said that he was. This man 
made no effort to restrain or prevent the kicking, and never moved. He stayed 
there for some time. The man who did the kicking afterwards lifted the patient 
whom he kicked up by the neck, dragged him back to the seat and set him 
down violently upon it. The attendants still did not interfere. I reported it to 
Dr. Thomas.” 

Mr. Albert Thayer, who was also a patient for a short time, states that it 
was the custom to strike and slap patients for infringing the rules, and that 
when a patient misbehaved the attendants would threaten to send him to the 
back wards among the dangerous lunatics. Sometimes these attendants 
would spend their time in teasing the patients. He gives the following in¬ 
stance : 

“There was a patient there that was fond of speaking of his honesty, and his 
attendants appeared to be fond of teasing him about it. When they were out 
walking two different times they treated him something after ths manner: When 
they are walking they have resting stops; and when they would be sitting down 
one of the attendants would get in front of him and the other behind him, and one 
of them would grab his hat and then slip it around to the other attendant and then 

tell the patient ‘you stole that.hat.’ They would keep this up for some time, and 

the patient, when they accused him of stealing the hat, would say ‘it is not so ; I 
am an honest man.’ 

Q. “The design was to irritate him and make fun of him ? 

A. “Yes, sir. And he was an old man—a fine looking old man. While they 

were doing that the other patients were not allowed to talk. 

Mr. Thayer also speaks of a man who had the epilepsy, and was subject 
to ill treatment. 

Q. “Who was the attendant ? 

A. “Cressenger and some of the convalescent patients themselves. 

Q. “Did any of the convalescent patients treat the man who was ill with 
epilepsy badly ? 

A. “Yes, sir; they struck him, slapped him and kicked him. 

Q. “Was the attendant present at the time? 

A. “Yes, sir. 

Q. “Did he interfere ? 

A. “No, sir. 

Q. “Was the patient ill with epilepsy in the ward when you left? 

A. He was sent to another vrard before I left. My attendant gave me to 
understand he would be sent to a ward where he would be made to behave himself. 

There was a patient there, whose name I don’t remember, at this time. They 
found it necessary to clean his finger-nails, and Cressinger took hold of him to clean 


15 


them, when he showed a disposition to refuse to have them cleaned. Cressinger 
then got one or two of the other patients to assist him in holding him. I helped 
to hold the patient myself, and during the operation Cressinger struck the patient a 
couple of times with his fist. The nails were always in a good condition, and there 
was no necessity for such force as that. That was in Ward C, and occurred about 
the first of July, two years ago.” 

The almost painful silence preserved by the patients in many of the 
wards, -while due in part to the nature of their malady, is also due in a 
measure to the forcible and repressive treatment practiced on them by the 
attendants. Patients are governed more through fear than affection. 

Recently in one of the back wards of the men’s department, a patient 
who had secreted a knife about his person, was deprived of it, and was then 
wantonly and brutally kicked by the attendant. The Superintendent hap¬ 
pening in immediately after the affray, instantly discharged the attendant. 
But only sporadic cases of cruelty come to light The attendants combine 
together, and rarely, if ever, betray the misdeeds of one another to the 
authorities. 

The need of reform in the character of attendants is apparent to Dr. 
Fletcher, as appears from a letter written by him to Mr. Thayer, containing 
the following: 

Indiana Hospital for the Insane, 'i 
Indianapolis, Oct. 3d, 1884. / 

Albert Thayer: 

Dear Sir—Your communication of the 22d received. I have no doubt of your 
motives regarding reforms in this institution. They are the highest and purest. 
Neither do I doubt the necessity of the reforms you mention.” 

The following is also contained in one of Dr. Fletcher’s letters to the 
Board: 

“ Owing to the large number of complaints of cruelty from attendants at the depart¬ 
ment for men, and the difficulty of finding persons of sufficient ability and the proper 
age, with the requisite amount of nerve, I have determined to introduce the system 
of having upon each ward a man and wife.” 

Dr. Fletcher has already introduced this system in some of the wards, 
and it is said, with admirable results. 

THE REMEDY. 

Many other matters have been brought to our attention, showing the poor 
character of the officers and employes chosen by the political methods which 
we have described—cases of drunkenesss, neglect of duty, and notorious im¬ 
morality, which have brought great scandal upon the hospital. We do not 
think that any useful purpose will be subserved by entering into the nause¬ 
ating details of these things, at the present time, especially since most of the 
parties involved in them, so far as appears, are no longer connected with the 
hospital. We think, however, that the condition of the hospital is such as to 
require a rigid, searching investigation, by somebody that possesses the power 
to compel the production of evidence. Our own inquiries have been much 
curtailed by the refusal, of various persons connected with the hospital, to 
disclose facts known to them, and by statements made to us confidentially, 
which we are not at liberty to insert in this report. 

Tn his report for March, 1885, Superintendent Fletcher says: 

“I would ask you to establish one rule at once: Never to keep in the pay of 
the hospital a person who is useless, and under no circumstances to part with one 


16 


who is valuable. It should be managed on the same principle that the head of a 
family would manage their own domestic affairs. A servant that is not a good one 
is not only useless but injurious.” 

In his report to the Board, April, 1885, he proposes the following plan 
to secure a higher degree of efficiency among the attendants at the hospital: 

“I would suggest that in an institution so large, a regular system of teaching 
and training of attendants should be required previous to being put upon the pay¬ 
roll. That no one be permitted to continue such a course who does not intend to 
follow insane hospital work as a vocation. They should wear a uniform when on 
duty. They should serve three months without pay; three months at $12 00; three 
months at $15.00; three months at $20.00; the second year $22.00, and each subse¬ 
quent year an addition of $1.00 per month. In this way we would have a reserve 
at all times of about twelve. And all persons graduating from the hospital course 
should pay back all expenses in case they took private employment as special nurses 
or entered other hospitals within a year. A similar course to this is pursued at 
McLain Hospital, Boston, Mass., and also works admirably in the City Hospital 
here and elsewhere.” 

The mismanagement of the asylum—a peculiarly great evil, considering 
the character of the Institution—lies in that abominable system by which 
the welfare of the unfortunate beings for whom the benevolence was created, 
is made a secondary consideration to some supposed party advantage or po¬ 
litical necessity, and no permanent improvement can be looked for while 
this continues to be the case. 

The obvious remedy for abuses connected with this Institution is the 
enactment of a lqw by the General Assembly providing for competitive tests 
of fitness, to be applied to all persons seeking employment in the Asylum, 
followed by a suitable probation, prohibiting appointments or removals for 
political reasons, and placing the administration of this Hospital, as well as 
the other benevolent institutions of this State, in the hands of non-partisan 
Boards of Trustees. We would also recommend that the position of Trustee 
of the Insane Hospital should not be accompanied with any salary. In most 
of the States such office is purely honorary, and is filled by a much better 
class of men than in Indiana. And we recommend that the Civil Service 
Reform Association of Indiana call the above facts to the attention of the 
people of the State, in order that members may be elected to the next Gen¬ 
eral Assembly who will bring about this much-needed reform. We further 
advise that a copy of the foregoing report be forwarded to the Governor of 
the State for such action or recommendation to the next General Assembly 
as shall seem suitable to him. And we further suggest that at the next 
session of the General Assembly, a petition be presented by our Association 
asking a thorough investigation of the management of the Hospital, at an 
early period in the session, so as to determine the nature and extent of 
proper reformatory legislation. 

WILLIAM D. FOULKE, 
OLIVER T. MORTON, 

LOUIS HOWLAND. 

Indianapolis, Ind., Sept. 10, 1886. 

[Read and approved by the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform 

Association , and ordered to be printed.] 



3 (i 2 tn 

* ivi Aii 10 * 'J- 

\ - l/\ 

r ' ‘ 


ILlIqIIq 


“i 

j 


v 


7 


□ 

_J LJ 


iform Assoc 


QL 



DOCUMENT No. 2. 


A Report Relating to the Federal Civil Service in Indiana Since 

March 4, 1885. 


To the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association : 

Gentlemen —I lay before you the results of an investigation begun in April 
last relating to the Federal Civil Service in Indiana since March 4, 1885. The 
information has been drawn from Republican, Democratic and Independent 
sources. Care has been taken to check and verify, and while some errors of detail 
may have been made, I believe this report presents a truthful general view since 
the date named. 

The country is trying to work its w,ay out of the spoils system, and the end 
may or may not be a long way off. Progress depends almost exclusively upon the 
Administration for the time being. As the Constitution now stands, if we are to 
be freed from the spoils system it must be done by the President, who derives his 
ample power not from any statute, but from the Constitution itself. It is not a 
question of how much a President can do, but of how much he will do. A statesman 
in that position could, if he willed, shatter that system beyond recuperation. The 
people, however, can not compel the President. We elect him upon the best 
promises we can secure, and then live in the hope that he will keep those promises. 
The promises, then, of Mr. Cleveland are first to be examined, and a knowledge 
of them is necessary to determine what under the circumstances is reasonably to 
be expected. That only can be regarded as failure which disappoints such ex¬ 
pectation. 

In his first annual message as Governor of New York Mr. Cleveland said : 
“It is submitted that the appointment of subordinates in the several State depart¬ 
ments, and ttyir tenure of office or employment should he based upon fitness or effi¬ 
ciency.” After his election to the Presidency he wrote, in December, 1884 : “ I 

regard myself pledged to this [the fair and honest enforcement of the Pendleton 









































act] because my conception of true Democratic faith and public duty requires that 
this * * * should be, in good faith and without evasion, en¬ 

forced, and because in many utterances made prior to my election as President, 
approved by the party to which I belong, and which I have no disposition to dis¬ 
claim, I have in effect promised the people that this should be done. * 

“ I know * * * that the spoils system has been supposed to be intimately 

related to success in the maintenance of party organization, and I am not sure that 
all those who profess to be the friends of this reform will stand firmly among its 
advocates when they find it obstructing their way to patronage and place. But 
fully appreciating the trust committed to my charge, no such consideration shall 
cause a relaxation on my part of an earnest effort to enforce this law. 

“ There is a class of government positions which are not within the letter of the 
civil service staiute, but which are so disconnected with the policy of an adminis¬ 
tration that the removal therefrom of present incumbents, in my opinion, should 
not be made during the terms for which they were appointed solely on partisan 
grounds, and for the purpose of putting in their places those who are in political 
accord with the appointing power. But many now holding such positions have 
forfeited all just claims to retention because they have used their places for party 
purposes in disregard of their duty to the people, and because, instead of being 
decent public servants, they have proved themselves offensive partisans and un¬ 
scrupulous manipulators of local party management. The lessons of the past 
should be unlearned, and such officials, as well as their successors, should be taught 
that efficiency, fitness and devotion to public duty are the conditions of their con¬ 
tinuance in public place.” 

It is necessary to turn back and read over the “ lessons of the past.” The 
Constitution makes no provision for removals except on impeachment. It fixes 
no term for the great body of place holders. Of the power of removal left 
by implication in the President, James Madison said in June, 1789: “ The danger 
then consists merely in this—the President can displace from office a man whose 
merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which 
the President can feel for such abuse of his power and the restraints that operate 
to prevent it ? In the first place he will be impeachable by the House before the 
Senate for such an act of mal-administration ; for 1 contend that the wanton removal of 
meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.” 

After he became President, Jefferson wrote, in March, 1801: “Of the thou¬ 
sands of officers, therefore, in the United States, a very few individuals only, prob¬ 
ably not twenty, will be removed ; and 4hey only for doing what they ought not to have 
done.” And to another correspondent: “ * * * But the great stumbling 

block will be removals, which, though made on those just principles only, on 
which my predecessor ought to have removed the same persons , will nevertheless be ascribed 
to removal on party principles.” 

The fact has been often repeated, that for forty years, and under six Presi¬ 
dents, only seventy-three officers were removed. Those forty years are an un¬ 
shaken witness that the makers of the Constitution understood that there could 
properly be no removals by the appointing power except for cause; and this ex¬ 
tends to the meanest employe. Congress recognized this by passing, for partisan 
purposes, the act of 1820, which limited the term of certain officers to four years. 
There is, then, in the Constitution, no justification for “ wanton ” removal from 
place—removal for what has come to be known as “ political reasons ; ” and such 
a removal is an act of arbitrary power belonging only to absolute rulers. Never¬ 
theless, after John Quincy Adams followed a long period of mal-administration 
consisting in usurpation of this arbitrary power, and in the ex^cise of it to a 
greater extent than was practiced by the head of any other nation in the world. 
This is the “ spoils system ” referred to by the President, and this period furnishes 
the lessons of the past which are to be unlearned. 


3 


Foreseeing the possibility of the spoils system by reason of ne act of 1820, 
Thomas H. Benton, in a report to the Senate in 1826, said : “ The King of England 
is the fountain of honor; the President of the United States is the source of pat¬ 
ronage. He presides over the entire system of federal appointments, jobs and 
contracts. * * * * We must look forward to the time * * * when the principle 

of public action will be open and avowed—the President wants my vote, and I want his pat¬ 
ronage. I will vote as he wishes and he will give me the office I wish for. What will this 
be but the government of one man ? And what is the government of one man but 
a monarchy ?” 

Under the stimulus of the act limiting certain terms to four years, the Execu¬ 
tive appetite was whetted, and the Executive hand was soon well in. “ Wanton ” 
removals became the rule without regard to expiration of term, and breaking over 
all constitutional limits, the officers who held without term were swept out with 
the rest. One of the last protests was made by Mr. Calhoun, who in 1835 said : 

“ It is only within the last four years that removals from office have been in¬ 
troduced as a system, and for the first time an opportunity has been afforded of 
testing the tendency of the practice and witnessing the mighty increase which it 
has given to the force of Executive patronage, and the entire and fearful change, 
in conjunction with other causes, it is effecting in our political system. Nor will 
it require much reflection to perceive in what manner it contributes to increase so 
vastly the extent of Executive patronage. So long as the offices were considered 
as public trusts, to be conferred on the honest, the faithful and capable, for the 
common good, and not for the benefit or gain of the incumbent or his party, and 
so long as it was the practice of the government to continue in office ihose who 
faithfully performed their duties, its patronage, in point of fact was limited to the 
mere power of nominating to accidental vacancies or to newly created offices, and 
would, of course, exercise but a moderate influence either over the body of the 
community or over the office holders themselves; but when this practice was re¬ 
versed—when offices, instead of being considered as public trusts, to be conferred 
on the deserving, were regarded as the spoils of victory, to be bestowed as rewards 
for partisan service—it is easy to see that the certain, direct and inevitable ten¬ 
dency of such a state of things is to convert the entire body of those in office into 
corrupt and supple instruments of power, and to raise up a host of hungry, greedy 
and subservient partisans, ready for every service, however base and corrupt. 
Were a premium offered for the best means of extending to the utmost the power of patron¬ 
age; to destroy the love of country, and to substitute a spirit of subserviency and man wor¬ 
ship, to encourage vice and discourage virtue ; and, in a word, to prepare for the subversion 
of liberty and the establishment of a despotism; no scheme more perfect could be devised, and 
such must be the tendency of the practice, with whatever intention adopted, or to whatever ex¬ 
tent pursued .” 

In declaring that “efficiency, fitness and devotion to public duty” are the 
conditions of continuance in public place, President Cleveland, in the clearest 
manner, declared his intention to return to the constitutional course of the founders 
of the Constitution, and to the principle and example of the founders of his own 
party. He was not the first who proposed this return. Others had advocated it 
for nearly twenty years. The National Democratic platform of 1876 says: 

“ Reform is necessary in the civil service. Experience proves that efficient, 
economical conduct of the government business is not possible if its civil service be 
subject to change at every election, be a prize fought for at the ballot box, be a brief 
reward of party zeal, instead of posts of honor, assigned for proved competency and 
held for fidelity in the public employ ; that the dispensing of patronage should neither 
be a tax upon the time of all our public men, nor theHnstrument of their am¬ 
bition.” 

Samuel J. Tilden’s letter of acceptance in 1876 says: “One (evil) is the pre¬ 
valent and demoralizing notion that the public service exists not for the business 
and benefit of the whole people, but for the interest of the office holders, who are 
in truth but the servants of the people. * * * * The other evil is the organ- 


4 


ization of the official class into a body of political mercenaries, governing the cau¬ 
cuses and dictating the nominations of their own party.” And in that year Mr. 
Hendricks, in his letter of acceptance, said: “ In the reform of our civil 

service I most heartily indorse that section of the platform which declares 
that the civil service ought not to be ‘subject to change at every election,’ 
and that it ought not to be made ‘ the brief reward of party zeal,’ but ought to be 
‘ awarded for proved competency and held for fidelity in the public employ.’ I 
hope never again to see the cruel and remorseless proscription for political opin¬ 
ions which has disgraced the administration of the last eight years.” And four 
years later the Democratic Convention reaffirmed the platform of 1876. 

The Pendleton act, as a beginning of the reform, was the outcome of this and 
similar agitation fostered by civil service reform associations, in whose every 
constitution was the clause, “removals shall be made for legitimate cause only, 
such as dishonesty, negligence or inefficiency, but not for political opinion or re¬ 
fusal to render party service.” Except in two cases this law did not in words 
attempt to deal with the power of removal. That power remained and still re¬ 
mains in the President; and this is practically true, even where Congress has 
vested certain appointments in the President’s subordinates. In the light of the 
discussion that preceded the passage of the Pendleton act, and considering the ob¬ 
ject and method of that act, it can not be said that the President could execute 
that law in its spirit and intent and still exercise or allow others to exercise the 
power of removal without cause. If, for instance, a postmaster may, unmolested 
by the President, “ wantonly,” as Mr. Madison puts it, dismiss any man, then he 
may so dismiss all. And if among the four from whom he must choose to fill the 
vacancy he can not find a partisan, and is forced to take one not a partisan, he 
may the next moment dismiss this appointee and look among the next four for a 
partisan. This is mocking at reform. The spoils system would be honester. But 
as we have seen, the President included not ouly the places within this law, but 
* the entire service within the principle of removal for cause only. With this fair 

promise in view I have pursued this investigation. 

A definition by the Administration of the words “ for cause ” was foreshadowed 
in Mr. Cleveland’s letter of December 25,1884, and this was codified by Postmaster 
General Vilas in a circular dated April 29, 1885. This cause was offensive partisan¬ 
ship in an office holder, and Mr Vilas laid down the following specifications: 

1. Having been an active editor or proprietor of a Republican newspaper print¬ 
ing offensive articles. 

2. Having been a stump speaker. 

3. Having been a member of a political committee. 

4. Having been an officer of a campaign club. 

5. Having been an organizer of political meetings. 

6. Having made his office headquarters of political work. 

7. Having put his clerks into the performance of political duties. 

8. Possibly other acts of equal force. 

The circular provided that proof of partisanship could be made by a Con¬ 
gressman’s affirmation of knowledge, or by the affidavit of some person whom the 
Congressman could vouch for as of “unquestioned credibility,” or by documentary 
evidence; offensive articles in newspapers were to be shown by slips. 

The definitions and specifications are none too strict, the offenses enumerated 
should not be tolerated in any Federal place holder. Given a proper case for the 
application of the rule, there must, of course, always be one certaiu inseparable 
accompaniment, without which its enforcement could only be intolerable—the same 
measure applied to an offender must be applied to his successor, and this, too, from 


5 


the moment of appointment, not from the time of some special order to be issued 
in the future. And the President and the Postmaster-General in conversation 
freely declared their intention to apply the rule rigidly from the first moment to 
the new appointees. Mr. Vilas wrote, September 14, 1885 : “I hope I shall ever 
be as willing to remove an unfit person when appointed by me as if he had been 
found in the service as I took it.” This, also, I have had constantly in mind. 

The Federal Civil Service in Indiana is mainly comprised of the postoffices, 
the railway mail service, the internal revenue service, the pension service, the 
customs service, the district attorney’s office, the marshal’s office, and the govern¬ 
ment depot at Jeffersonville. It falls into two divisions, the classified service 
entrance to which is open to all through competitive tests, and the unclassified 
service, entrance to which is restricted by arbitrary appointment. The Indiana¬ 
polis postoffice only is in the classified service. 


POSTOFFICES—FIRST CLASS. 

The only office of this class is at Indianapolis. Aquilla Jones took charge of 
this office as postmaster at midnight, beginning April 19, 1885. Mr. Jones had 
for many years been a citizen of high standing in Indianapolis. Fifty years be¬ 
fore he had been a postmaster under Andrew Jackson, and he held like positions 
under later Presidents. He found his office under a non-partisan law, based upon 
open competition. It was a critical moment for the new system. Many men 
would have regarded it an honor to be thus permitted to enforce a great reform 
act with honesty and impartiality under a cross-fire of hungry friends and bitter 
enemies. He found in the unclassified service one assistant postmaster and cash¬ 
ier, one stamp clerk, three heads of divisions, five male sack repairers, four fe¬ 
male sack repairers, and one messenger ; in the classified service thirty-one clerks 
and thirty-nine carriers, making a total of eighty-five employes. 

CHANGES IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE. 

On taking possession of his office Mr. Jones forthwith removed the assistant 
postmaster and cashier, the stamp clerk, the messenger and the superintendents of 
the registry department and of the carriers, and filled their places with Democrats. 
All of the dismissed officers were competent and efficient men, as was also the 
superintendent of the money order department, who was invited to remain a few 
weeks and who refused. 

He appointed as assistant postmaster, John W. Dodd, an obscure and reduced 
politician. From a reform standpoint a worse selection could not have been made, 
and it startled even the politicians. He appointed as cashier, his son, Ben. Jones. 
It will be observed that Dodd and Ben. Jones were appointed in place of one man. 

The other places, except the money order department, were filled by untried 
men. The superintendent of carriers had been a paperhanger and a politician. 
The superintendent of the registry department was nineteen years old, a nephew 
(by marriage) of Mr. Hendricks, and had been clerk in a drug store. The stamp 
clerk had been a minister, and his personal performance of his duties for a long time 
now appears like a practical joke on the public; but it was at the time a serious 
inconvenience. He has improved, but in the conduct of the business he is decidedly 
inferior to his predecessor. The dismissed stamp clerk, W. W. Welling, for four¬ 
teen years had been an employe beyond criticism. The following quotation from 
his affidavit shows the circumstauces under which he was dismissed : 



6 


“ W. W. Welling, being duly sworn, says that he is forty-five years old and is 
by occupation a farmer. That he served about three years in the eighth Indiana 
regiment and was wounded at the seige of Vicksburg and carried the bullet for 
nearly three years. That he was appointed railway mail agent in 1868, and after 
three years’ service was appointed stamp clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice, which 
position he held until he was dismissed therefrom by Postmaster Jones, April 19, 
1885. That about one week before Postmaster Jones took possession of the office, 
he came to the stamp window and said to affiant: “ Mr. Weliing, would you like 
to stay?” And affiant replied: “Of course, I should like to stay, Mr. Jones.” 
That Jones then said, “ Well, when Mr. Wildman gets through with you, you get 
a new bond and have it ready to present to me.” That affiant prepared a new 
bond as requested. That he saw no more of said Jones until April 17, when said 
Jones brought Rev. O. H. P. Abbett into the stamp office and said : “ Mr. Welling, 
when Mr. Wildman gets through with you, Mr. Abbett will take your place.” 
That affiant then suggested that it would not be necessary to present the new bond, 
and said Jones replied that he guessed not. That affiant never asked said Jones to 
retain him.” 

In the sack repair department every man and woman was within a few weeks 
dismissed and was succeeded by a Democrat. The superintendent, G. F. McGinnis, 
was an ex-General of the army, and of high standing in the community. The new 
man was a meat inspector. He was the party boss of bis ward, the henchman 
of a well known political clique, and in other respects was an unfit appoinment. 
He draws $100 a month salary and pays no attention to the duties of his place, 
but pursues his business of meat inspecting as before. Of the four women re¬ 
moved, one was a niece of the late General Burnside ; one was a soldier’s widow, 
with a widowed mother ; one was a widow ; one was unmarried, with a widowed 
mother. All had others dependent upon them for support. They did their work well 
and earned their wages. They were succeeded by three male ward politicians, but 
with no saving of pay to the government. It does not seem that there can be a 
claim of more work done by the three men, because the four women did all there 
was to do. The male employes discharged were efficient men: three, including 
the superintendent, were soldiers. 

Soon after Mr. Jones became postmaster he was appointed custodian of the 
postoffice building. As such he controlled six employes—janitors, watchman, en¬ 
gineer and elevator boy; of these four were soldiers. He gave them time to put 
on their coats and hats and appointed Democrats in their places. As head janitor 
he appointed his son, Fred Jones. The dismissed head janitor had always done his 
share of the mopping and other janitorial work with his three subordinates, but 
his successor confined himself to superintendence, and as this took little of his 
time, he was put to it to find a place to stay where his leisure would not be ex¬ 
posed to the public. For many days he sat in the engine room in the basement. 
Later an elaborately furnished room up stairs was assigned to him, and he as¬ 
sumed the title of “assistant custodian.” Later he secured a place as special 
examiner in the pension service. His successor has resumed janitorial work and 
has lost the title. 

Deferring to all of the foregoing removals, whether made as postmaster or 
custodian, Mr. Jones said: “I made such removals for no other reason than that 
the persons were Republicans.” 

PARTY WORK—UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE. 

In view of the demonstrated attitude of the President, interpreted further by 
the circular of the Postmaster general as to causes for removal, and relying on the 
reasonable inference that new appointees everywhere would be held to the same 


7 


uile, I have investigated the conduct of many of them in different parts of the 
State to determine whether or not they were being guided by the rules laid down. 

It is convenient to know that the last Indianapolis city election was held in 
September, 1885; the last township election, embracing Indianapolis, was held in 
March, 1886, each shortly preceded by primaries; the last Democratic congres¬ 
sional convention of the Indianapolis district was held May 27, 1886, and was 
called together again September 4 last; the last Democratic county convention 
was held July 17 1886, and having performed some of its duties adjourned to 
August 14,1886, and the last Democratic State Convention was held August 11 last. 

Of the foregoing appointees connected with the postoffice and the Federal build¬ 
ing I ostmaster Jones has taken part in a primary, Assistant Postmaster Dodd made a 
speech at a primary, and was deeply interested in defeating the re-nomination of 
Mr. Bynum for Congress; Cashier Ben Jones promised the postoffice against Mr» 
Bynum, but at the primary cast his vote for a Bynum delegate. 

Stamp Clerk Abbett has attended a convention, and was vice-president of a 
political meeting September 27. 

Joseph Sheppard, the head of the repair department, has been a busy and 
thrifty “ worker,” occupying a seat in the City Council. He controls the primaries 
of his ward ; practically he is a primary. Any candidate seeking delegates must 
see him. He was prominent at the last city nominations. He made earnest 
efforts in the last convention for the nomination for county officers, and was 
closely occupied with the recent State convention, in which a candidate was 
astonished at seeing delegates promised to him by Sheppard voting for his ad¬ 
versary. September 27, he was vice-president of a political meeting. 

John Van Stan, appointed in the repair department in place of a woman, 
has been in perpetual motion on behalf of his party. At the last city election he 
was a challenger;, at the last township election he was a challenger and ticket ped¬ 
dler ; at the last congressional primaries he was chairman of one until it split, and 
then was chairman of the anti Bynum section. He was at the congressional 
convention working against Bynum. He was a delegate to the last county con¬ 
vention, and again to the adjourned convention August 14, 1886. 

Jacob Fox, appointed in the repair department, was at the polls working 
for Democratic candidates at the last city election. 

Dennis Colbert, appointed in the repair department, continues to be a 
zealous ward worker. He was a delegate at the last city convention, also at the 
congressional convention as a Bynum man, and, as a reward, his brother has re¬ 
cently been appointed to the railway mail service. 


THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE—REMOVALS. 

The duties of the assistant postmaster and cashier under the previous adminis¬ 
tration had been performed by one man, at a salary of $2,000. Dodd was put in 
as assistant postmaster at a salary of $2,000, and Ben Jones was put in as 
cashier at $1,500. To obtain the additional $1,500, Mr. Jones, at the moment of 
entering his office, cut down the classified service by dismissing two distributing 
clerks, Wheat and Foster, who each received $1,000 a year. Mr. Jones and his son, 
Ben Jones, and Dodd, among them, do the same work formerly easily done by 
Postmaster Wildman and assistant postmaster Thompson. Yet $1,500 more is 



8 


paid. The distributing force was and still remains cut down, to the inconvenience 
of the public. Needed men were without cause deprived of their positions in the 
classified service, in order to put upon the pay-roll, in the unclassified service, the 
postmaster’s son, and a man who apparently had some irresistible claim to “rec¬ 
ognition”. 

I quote from Wheat’s affidavit: 

“ James C. Wheat, being sworn, says that he is forty-three years old, that he is 
a clerk. That he served two years and seven months as first sergeant in the forty- 
ninth Indiana regiment, and was wounded in service. That he was appointed 
distributing clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice in 1876, and while in that position 
he never stood below ninety-seven on examination, and had a small per cent, of 
errors in work. That three or four days before Postmaster Jones took charge he 
heard that he was to be dismissed, because said Jones wanted to make places for 
his son Ben and J. W. Dodd, but had not money enough from Thompson’s salary 
to pay them, and would apply affiant’s salary to that purpose. That he met said 
Jones the day before he took charge, and, telling him what he had heard, he asked 
said Jones not to dismiss him, but to give him a chance to resign, and Jones said 
he would do so. That said Jones took charge the next night at midnight, and the 
following morning this affiant received his written dismissal, to take effect at once. 
That he then went to said Jones and reminded him of his promise to give him a 
chance to resign, and Jones replied: ‘ I’ve got nothing to do with it. Go and see 
Dodd,’ and this ended the interview.” 

The wanton dismissal of Foster was one of peculiar hardship. I quote from 
his affidavit: 

“Wallace Foster, being sworn, says that he is forty-nine years old and was a 
clerk, but is not now in any employment. That he served nearly three years in the 
eleventh and thirteenth Indiana regiments. That he is entirely deaf by reason 
of exposure while in the service. That he held the rank of lieutenant the first- 
three months and captain the balance of the service. That he was appointed clerk 
in the Indianapolis postoffice in 1881, and was dismissed therefrom by Postmaster 
Jones, April 19, 1885. That during the last three years of his service in the post- 
office he was distributing clerk. That the first he heard of his dismissal was on 
Sunday, April 19, when he went to his work at the postoffice, said Jones having 
taken possession at twelve o’clock the night before. Affiant was then handed a 
written notice of that date, saying that his services were no longer required. That 
his deafness began in 1862, when he became entirely deaf in one ear, but that hia 
hearing in both ears was not entirely destroyed until after two years’ service in the 
postoffice.” 

“We hereby certify that Wallace Foster’s honesty, integrity and faithfulness 
are unquestionable, and were during his term of service in the Indianapolis post- 
office. That while his efficiency on account of his infirmity was not of the highest 
degree, yet it was not so impaired but that he was a fair average clerk. 

“ J. A. Wildman, late Postmaster at Indianapolis. 

“ E. P. Thompson, late Ass’t. Postmaster at Indianapolis. 

“ R. P. Craft, late Supt. Carriers at Indianapolis.” 


The Pendleton act was passed January 16,1883. The following table includes 
all examinations under that law for places in this postoffice: 


June 25, 1883. 
August 22, 1883. 
June 12, 1884. 
February 28, 1885. 
June 10, 1885. 
June 15, 1886. 


9 applied. 
11 applied. 
18 applied. 
25 applied. 
165 applied. 


3 passed. 
9 passed. 
15 passed. 
24 passed. 
131 passed. 
32 passed. 


45 applied. 

This table shows that an examination was held less than two months before 
Mr. Jones became postmaster. His predecessor had made few appointments from 


9 


the list of those last examined there was, therefore, on hand, a large list of eligi- 
bles for vacancies that could honestly occur. 

I am free to charge that Mr. Jones has never intended to honestly enforce the 
law, but he has bent every energy toward working Republican incumbents out of 
their places and putting his partisans into the vacancies, and that he has grossly 
and deliberately violated the Pendleton act. The facts which follow sustain this 
serious charge : 

From the list of eligibles in existence when he became postmaster, Mr. Jones 
has made but one appointment, Bates, a Democrat. Bearing upon his intention, I 
quote from the following affidavits : 

“ Charles W. Riggs being sworn says that he is forty-six years old, and is by 
trade a stoneware potter. That he served three years and one month in the thirty- 
sixth Indiana regiment. That he was examined for admission to the Civil Ser¬ 
vice at Indianapolis in February, 1885, and attained a standing of 78.15. That 
about a week after Aquilla Jones become postmaster affiant called upon said 
Jones and told him that he had passed the Civil Service examination, and had 
come to see if there was any prospect of any appointment as carrier. That said 
Jones in reply immediately said : “ Who did you vote for at the last election ?” That 

affiant answered : “ I don’t know that you have any right to ask that question ; 

I don’t know that it is any of your business.” That said Jones then said, “ What’s 
your business?’ to which affiant answered that he was then driving a bread wagon 
and said Jones then said, “ You had better stay where you are. There won’t he any 
more appointments until after there is another examination. 

II Henry C. Green being sworn says that he is forty-three years old, and is by 
profession a school teacher. That he served three years and ten months in the 
fifty-second Indiana regiment. That he passed the examination for admission 
to the Civil Service at Indianapolis in February, 1885, attaining a standing of 90 
per cent. That after Aquilla Jones became postmaster at Indianapolis the affiant, 
believing that he was near the head of the list, called upon said Jones to learn the 
prospect of an appointment. That said Jones informed him that no appointments 
or removals would be made until July. That this affiant having in mind the 
change of administration, asked said Jones if any Republicans would he appointed by 
him, and said Jones, after some hesitation, answered ‘No.’ That this conversation oc¬ 
curred sometime in May, 1885.” 

The Civil Service Commission in the meantime, on the recommendation of 
Mr. Jones, appointed John W. Dodd, the assistant postmaster, to be the head of 
the local examining board; the selection of Mr. Simeon Coy, of Indianapolis, Mr. 
Michael McDonald, of Chicago, and Mr. Michael J. Dady, of New York, to like 
positions in their respective postoffices, would have been analogous appointments, 
so far as concerns the civil service law. Associated with him were Mr. Morgan, 
the new superintendent of the registry department, and D. W. Elliott, a Republi¬ 
can member of the former board. 

The examination Mr. Jones was looking for was held June 10, 1885, and 
131 passed, from which list Mr. Jones has since made all of his appointments, 
42 in number. Other than Wheat and Foster, no removals had so far been 
made. Being now ready, Mr. Jones entered zealously upon the work of making 
the classified service in his office a part of his party machine, dismissing his first 
group July 1. Every act made his intention plainer, as shown by the following : 

“ Willis G. Wood, being sworn, says that he is twenty years old, and is a grad¬ 
uate of the Indianapolis High School, and is now a book-keeper in the Indiana 
National Bank of Indianapolis. That he was examined for admission to the civil 

ervice in June, 1883, and attained a standing of -, being one of three who 

s passed the first cDil-service examination held at Indianapolis. That he was ap¬ 
pointed clerk in the money-order department of the Indianapolis postoffice in July 





f 


10 


of said year, and was dismissed therefrom June 30, 1885, by Postmaster Jones. 
That, on being dismissed, he requested and received from said Jones the following : 

“June 30 , 1885 . 

“ To whom it may concern: . 

“This is to certify that there is no dissatisfaction with the manner in which v\mis Or. 
Wood has discharged his duties in the money-order department of the Indianapolis postomce 
during my administration. “ Aquilla Jones, P. M.” 

“ That later he gave as his reason for having dismissed affiant, that affiant 
had made an increase of salary a condition of remaining. That this statement 
was false; that affiant’s salary was increased without his solicitation, or knowl¬ 
edge, or expectation. That he afterward understood that it was done at the sug¬ 
gestion of David W. Elliott, because affiant’s work had been largely increased by 
the changes in the money-order department. That when said Jones gave affiant 
the above certificate, he said that he had no objection to this affiant 'personally , but that he 
had promised the place to another , and so he had to let affiant go.” 

“ Oscar N. Wilmington, being sworn, says that he forty years old, and is a 
carpenter. That he served four years in the fifty-seventh Indiana regiment, three 
years as an enlisted man and the fourth as first lieutenant. That he was appointed 
registry clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice in July, 1881, and was dismissed there¬ 
from June 30, 1885. That he worked thirteen hours a day, Sunday and all. That 
on the da} Postmaster Jones took charge of the office this affiant saw Ben Jones, 
the cashier, and a son of the postmaster, and said to him : ‘I came into this office 
without solicitation on my part, and I don’t want to be kicked out of it. When 
you want my place, if you will let me know, I will vacate it; ’ and he answered : 
‘ Oh, yes; you’ll all have plenty of notice.’ That on the same day affiant walked up 
from the Union depot with Assistant Postmaster Dodd, ajid gathered from his talk 
about changes, that all the old employes were to be changed except David Elliott, 
and this affiant then conveyed to said Dodd the same wish to be allowed to resign 
instead of being dismissed, and said Dodd gave affiant to understand that his wish 
would be respected. That the conversation with Dodd occurred immediately before 
that with said Ben Jones. That the next affiant heard of his leaving the service was 
on the evening of June 29, when he received from Postmaster Jones a written dismis¬ 
sal, to take effect the following day. That on the evening of June 30, affiant, not 
understanding why he was dismissed instead of being allowed to resign, went to Post¬ 
master Jones and asked him what he had done that he had been dismissed; and 
told him that if he had done anything, either before or since said Jones became 
postmaster to deserve dismissal, he wanted to know what it was ; and said Jones 
said there was nothing. That affiant then said: ‘I suppose, then , you dismissed me 
because you wanted my place for some one elseV To which said Jones replied, “Yes, I 
suppose so.” That, in passing out of the postoffice building, this affiant was called 
by said Ben Jones, who, in the course the conversation, stated that the reason of 
affiant’s dismissal was that his place was wanted for a Democrat.” 

“ Louis Howland and Lucius B. Swift being sworn, say that they are attorneys 
at law in the city of Indianapolis. That on July 2, 1885, they called upon Aquilla 
Jones, postmaster of said city, and gave him their names, and told him they were 
members of the Independent organization in Indiana, to which he answered, “ I 
know who you are.” That they then called his attention to the fact that he had 
on the day before dismissed five men from the classified service and had appointed 
others, and that affiants were interested in the execution of the Civil Service Law, 
and had come in to get information, and in answer to questions said Jones 
said: ‘Some of the men removed are inefficient, not all of them. There were 
charges against some of them, but not all. There were no charges against Wil¬ 
mington. I liked him personally. He was a good man. He did his work. There 
were no charges against Wood. I liked him, too; he was ^ good man. These 
men were Republicans. They were not of our faith, and I changed them because 
I had promised the places to Democrats. I told these Democrats before the exam¬ 
ination that if they passed the examination I would give them places.’ That affi¬ 
ants then suggested, ‘you mean if they got among the first four?’ and said Jones 
answered ‘ Yes.” That affiants asked as to Jones’s intention about appointing Re¬ 
publicans, and said Jones answered, ‘ No Republicans passed this examination,” 
referring to the examination held here June 10, 1885. That affiants expressed the 
opinion that Republicans were then examined, and Jones answered, ‘ Well, if they 




11 


passed I won’t appoint them.’ That in answer to further questions Jones said, ‘If 
there was a Republican among the first four I would not appoint him if I knew it no 
matter how high he stood on examination. I would not appoint him because he was 
a Republican. I do not know just how many changes I shall make. I did not find 
any Democrats here, and I mean to make changes until the Democrats preponder¬ 
ate in the office. I think I can run this office better if I have at least a majority 
of my own faith. I don’t know what the last election meant if it didn’t mean that 
the Republicans were to be turned out. I intend to look first to the public interest, 
and then to that of my pariy. I shall make one change Saturday. I have promised 
a place to a Democrat, and I shall dismiss a letter carrier Saturday. lie is an ineffi¬ 
cient man,’ then, swinging in his chair, Mr. Jones added, ‘Oh, I don’t know how many 
changes I shall make; I shall keep a few Republicans.’ That said Jones further 
said, ‘I follow the law in regard to examinations.’ And in answer to the question, 
‘If you have a Republican in the classified service who is a good man, who does 
his work well, and against whom there is no complaint, will you put him out 
merely to give his place to a Democrat ?’ Jones said, ‘ I shall if I want to. That 
is my interpretation of the Civil Service Law.” 

“ Oscar P. Hoover being sworn says that he is thirty-four years old, and is a 
farmer, but is not now in any occupation. That he was appointed carrier in the 
Indianapolis postoffice in July, 1875, and was dismissed therefrom April 1, 1886. 
That on March 17, 1886, he was called into the office of Postmaster Jones, who 
said to him, ‘ We’ve been pretty good to you men all winter, and now I want you 
to resign the 1st of April.’ That some days later affiant sent in his resignation to 
take effect July 15. That in the meantime Assistant Postmaster Dodd had several 
times asked affiant to sign a resignation, saying he wanted to send it to the de¬ 
partment, but affiant insisted upon getting up his own. That when said resigna¬ 
tion was received by said Jones he sent for affiant and said that he had some sort 
of document from affiant which he could not make out; he further said, ‘ It will 
be better for you to resign. I have sufficient reasons for wanting your place, and I’ll 
put another man in your place the 1st of April anyway if you don’t,’ which was 
done.” 

“ Lindley Vinton, of C. & A. Potts & Co. ; Worth Merritt, of George Merritt & 
Co.; D. A. Richardson, of Richardson & Evans ; Isaac Thalman, of C. E. Geisen- 
dorff & Co. ; S. S. Robinson, president Acme Milling Co., and T. E. Chandler, of 
(.’handler & Taylor, being sworn, say that they are citizens of Indianapolis, whose 
mail was formerly delivered by Oscar P. Hoover, letter carrier. That heariug 
that said Hoover was about to be dismissed by Postmaster Jones, they called upon 
said Jones with a petition for said Hoover’s retention, signed by many firms on 
said Hoover’s route. That they stated to said Jones that said Hoover had been a 
faithful and efficient carrier, and that during his service of eleven years they had 
never heard any complaint about him, and they requested that he be retained. 
That said Jones’s manner was very discourteous to affiants. That he peremptorily 
refused to consider the request or to receive said petition. That said Jones said 
that he had made arrangements to put another man in Hoover’s place and he was 
going to do it. That to a question if there were any complaints against Hoover, 
said Jones said there had been complaints about the carrier service but there had 
been none against Hoover, and that he had done pretty well ; that, said Jones 
said, was not the reason for changing, but Hoover was well fixed — was the ovmer of a 
farm, and could take care of himself and didn't need the place. He further said : ‘ And 
there are plenty of men who have a hard time to get bread and butter , and I am going to 
m ike places for them .’ That to a suggestion from affiant Vinton that the change 
contemplated would be a violation of the civil service law, said Jones gave affiants 
to understand that that made no difference , that he had made up his mind to make these 
changes and that he was going to do it” 

Tne following is from the affidavit of Will E. Tousey: 

“That he then asked said Jones why he had called for affiant’s resignation, 
and if there were any charges against him, to which said Jones replied that there 
were no charges. That affiant then asked said Jones if he had any complaint 
against or fault to find with affiant’s efficiency or the way in which he had done 
his work, and said Jones answered, no, he had no complaint to make at all; that all he 
wanted was affiant's place; also, ‘ you appreciate, Mr. Tousey, that I am in a rather 
awkward place, pushed on by one party and held back by the other.’ That affiant 


12 


then went and had in substance the same talk with said Dodd, and got the same 
replies. That said Dodd also added : ‘ When I was a young man, 1 had a friend 
of opposite politics with whom I used to get in warm discussions. My party was 
in office and my friend insisted they should get out, and when I asked why, he an¬ 
swered, ‘ because, by God, it ain’t in the nature of things for you to stay there.’ ” 

“ Matthew A. Lockwood, being duly sworn, says that he is forty-two years old. 
That he served three years in the seventh Indiana regiment, and nine months in 
the one hundred and forty-eighth Indiana regiment. That he was appointed car¬ 
rier in the Indianapolis postoffice in June, 1873, and was dismissed therefrom in 
March, 1886. That he carried mail on the same route for thirteen years. That 
about March 15, having heard that a number of men were to be dismissed, lie 
asked Assistant Postmaster Dodd if he was one, and said Dodd replied that he did 
not know. That Postmaster Jones just then came along and said Dodd asked him. 
That said Jones named several, but not this affiant. That he told said Jones that 
he wanted to know about himself, because he had a family to look after ; and said 
Jones answered : ‘All right, I’ll take you too. I’ll accept your resignation for the 
1st. You're all going anyway. I've kept all of you longer than I've wanted to. Sum¬ 
mer's come now and you can make a living, and I want you all to get out of here. I've done 
better than the Republican party ivould." That two days later said Dodd came to talk 
about the form of affiant’s resignation, and offered to write it out; and affiant said 
to him : ‘ You are dismissing me, I suppose, because you want my place for some¬ 
body else. If you have any charges against me, or anything of that kind, I’d 
like to know it.’ That said Dodd answered: 1 There are no charges at all, Mr. 
Lockwood. You've always done your work well. We want your place for a Democrat. The 
party pressure outside is causing the removals. We are actually removing some men I think 
more of than the men we're taking in to fill their places. The new men are not as good men 
as some of the old we are discharging.' That this talk was, in substance, repeated 
with said Dodd the day before affiant left. That he handed in his resignation 
worded ‘ by request,’ to take effect April 1st following, but left the office about ten 
days before that date.” 

“Gustav Schmedel, being sworn, says that he is twenty-four years old. That 
he was examined for admission to the civil service at Indianapolis in June, 1884, 
and attained a standing of 94.45. That he was appointed a carrier in the Indian¬ 
apolis postoffice in September. 1884, and was dismissed therefrom May 31, 1886. 
That the first he heard of his dismissal was about May 20th, 1886, when he was 
called in by Postmaster Jones, and the following conversation took place: 

Affiant—‘How do you do, sir?’ 

Postmaster Jones—‘ How do you do? Your name is—?’ 

Affiant—‘ Gustav Schmedel.’ 

Postmaster Jones—‘Ah ! yes. Well, sir, I just wish to tell you that your res¬ 
ignation would be acceptable about, or rather on the 1st of June.’ 

Affiant—‘ Yes, sir. Any charges?’ 

Postm ster Jones—‘No, no. Not a complaint to make; only I have a Democrat 
whom I ivish to put in your place.' 

Affiant—‘All right, sir. Good day.’ 

“That a couple of days later Assistant Postmaster Dodd asked affiant if he 
should report him to Washington as having resigned ; and affiant answered: ‘ Most 
emphatically, no, sir. If you wish to get rid of me, bounce me.’ That affiant 
then asked said Dodd if there were any charges against him, and Dodd answered 
that he did not know, but that if affiant did, not resign Mr. Jones ivould find some charges 
against him. That on said May 31st affiant went to cashier Ben Jones to draw his 
pay, and then asked him if there were any charges against affiant, and received for 
answer : * I don’t know, and I’m sick of the whole business.’ ” 

CHIEF LOCAL EXAMINER DODD. 

The first clear indication of Mr. Dodd’s point of view was before entering 
upon the duties of his office. Being importuned to retain certain carriers, he re¬ 
plied: “If we begin to make promises to keep carriers, we shall have no places 
for our political friends.” When the group of July 1 was dismissed, Mr. Dodd 
gave his opinion as follows concerning the changes in the postoffice proper : “Any 


13 


charges against the men dismissed?” [Wood, Hand, Wilmington, Wirt, Kumele, 
and Adams] was asked of the assistant postmaster. ‘‘No, sir; I am happy to 
state—none.” 

The irony of his position as chief local examiner is still further indicated by 
the following, in addition to what has already been shown : 

“Levi S. Hand being sworn says that he is 45 years old and a carpenter; that 
he served three years in the nineteenth Indiana regiment; that he was appointed dis¬ 
tributing clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice in October, 1875, and was dismissed 
therefrom July 1, 1885. That the first affiant knew of his dismissal was when 
after he had been ill about ten days with rheumatism [except one day when he 
attempted to work], his dismissal to take effect immediately was sent up to his 
house. That afterward he called upon the cashier, Ben Jones, and asked why he 
had been dismissed, to which said Ben Jones replied that he did not know,* and 
sent affiant to Assistant Postmaster Dodd, saying that said Dodd was running 
things. That affiant then asked said Dodd the reason for his dismissal, and said 
Dodd replied ‘ Well, really, I don’t know any more than that we want your place for a 
Democrat. We’ve got to begin somewhere and so we begin with you.’ ” 

The following is from the affidavit of Frank Adams: 

“That a day or two before his dismissal took effect he said to Assistant Post¬ 
master Dodd: ‘I hope I have performed my duties satisfactorily,’ and said Dodd 
answed, l Yes, we have no fault to find.’ ” 

“Oliver P. McLeland, being sworn, says that he is twenty-five years old, and 
a wood-working machinist; that he was appointed carrier in the Indianapolis 
postoffice in 1881, and was dismissed therefrom May 31, 1886; that about May 11, 
1886, Postmaster Jones sent for him and said : ‘ I’ve been pretty good to you, and 

I’d like to have you good to me. I’ll accept your resignation for the last of the 
month ; ’ that he made no reply, except to ask if that was all, and said Jones said 
it was; that on the last day of the same month Assistant Postmaster Dodd spoke 
to him and said : 1 It is better for the boys to resign than to have us drum up charges 

against them; ’ and further : l It almost breaks Mr. Jones’s heart to have to drum up any 
charges against the boys;’ and that there were no charges against the four who were 
to go that day except Abbett; that this affiant did not resign, but understood that 
he was dismissed; that the four referred to by said Dodd were this affiant, Gustav 
Schmedel, Rollin H. Blackledge and John Abbett, all carriers.” 

FORCED RESIGNATIONS. 

Apparently somewhat racked by public criticism, Mr. Jones adopted a method 
of forcing resignations. In addition to those already showing this, I cite the fol¬ 
lowing, from affidavits: 

“ Benjamin Crane, being sworn, says that he is fifty-one years old, and is by trade 
a carpenter. That he served four years and seven months in the twenty-sixth Ohio 
regiment. That he entered as a private and was a captain when mustered out. 
That he was wounded in battle. That he was appointed carrier in the Indianapolis 
postoffice in 1875. That he resigned by request of Postmaster Jones April 1, 1886. 
That the first intimation he had that he was to leave the service was about the 
second Saturday in March, 1886, when Postmaster Jones called him one side and 
said : ‘ Look here, Ben, just a word : All I’ve got to say is, your resignation will 

be accepted the first of April.’ To which affiant replied : ‘All right, sir.’ That 
the following Monday Assistant Postmaster Dodd brought a written resignation 
for affiant to sign, which affiant did, to take effect said April 1. That to affiant’s 
remark that he had nothing to add or to take from the resignation said Dodd re¬ 
plied : ‘ We’ve nothing against you, Ben, if you’ve nothing against us.” 

“ Jacob H. Mattern, being sworn, says that he is fifty-one years old. That he 
was appointed carrier in the Indianapolis postoffice in 1869, and was dismissed 
therefrom April 1, 1886, by notice received March 13. That he carried mail on 
one route sixteen years. That the first he knew of his dismissal was when Post¬ 
master Jones said to him : ‘ Mr. Mattern, I want your resignation by the first of 

April ; ’ to which affiant replied, ‘ All right.’ That later, affiant asked Assistant 
Postmaster Dodd if there were any charges against him and Dodd said there were 
none. That affiant accordingly handed in his resignation about April 1. That 


14 


affiant served over two years in the second Iowa regiment and was discharged for 
disability.” 

“ Henry J. Brattain, being sworn, says that he is fifty-six years old. That he 
served two years and nine months in the seventy-ninth Indiana regiment, from 
which he was discharged at the close of the war. That he was appointed letter 
carrier in the Indianapolis postoffice at the beginning of the letter carrier system 
in that office—he thinks in 1869, and was dismissed therefrom October 31, 1885, on 
a written notice received about a week before, which was the first indication he had 
that he was to be dismissed. That he carried on the same route during his whole 
term of service except as his territory was cut off’from and added to as the city in¬ 
creased. That his standing as a carrier, according to the reports of the office, was 
high. That no one connected with the office since Mr. Jones became postmaster 
in any way indicated to affiant that his work was not satisfactory.” 

“Hans Blume being sworn, says that he is forty-seven years old, that he was 
educated for a soldier and was a second lieutenant in the Prussian army. That he 
came to America in 1862, and after six months service as volunteer aid-de-camp, 
he became second lieutenant in the thirty-second Indiana regiment, and at the 
close of the war he was lieutenant colonel commanding that regiment. That he 
was appointed foreign delivery clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice in 1883, and 
resigned therefrom by request of Postmaster Jones March 1, 1886. That he made 
occasional mistakes such as would inevitably occur, but never of a nature serious 
enough to call out a reprimand from his superiors. That about the middle of 
February, 1886, Postmaster Jones sent for him and said, 1 Blume, I have made up 
my mind that I want your place by the 1st of March.’ That he informed said 
Jones that he could have his place at once if he wished it. That said Jones re¬ 
plied that the 1st of March would do. That the same afternoon he handed his 
resignation to Assistant Postmaster Dodd, and asked if there were any complaints 
or charges against him. That said Dodd answered : l No , there are none, and there 
haven’t been any, and ive are well satisfied with your work ; but you knoiv how it is in poli¬ 
tics; the postmaster is pushed harder by the Democrats than the people generally know, and 
he has to redeem himself with his party. He had to make room for one of them, and yours 
is the only place we can take at the present time.’ ” 

“William H. Fitch being sworn says that he is 57 years old and is a cabinet¬ 
maker, but is not now in any business. That he was appointed distributing clerk 
in the mailing department of the Indianapolis postoffice in March, 1877, and was 
dismissed therefrom by Postmaster Jones on July 1, 1886. That during said nine 
years of service he has had leave of absence but once, and then for a period of two 
weeks. That during said service he believes that the record of his daily work has 
been the highest with perhaps a single exception. That the first indication he had 
that he was to be dismissed, was when, on June 7, 1886, Postmaster Jones called 
him in and said, ‘ Mr. Fitch, I’ve kept you here a long while,’ to which affiant re¬ 
plied : ‘I thank you, Mr. Jones, for keeping me as long as you have.’ That said 
Jones then said that he would like to have affiant’s resignation by the 1st of July. 
That affiant then asked said Jones if there were any charges against him, and said 
Jones replied : ‘ Oh, no, no charges. You know how it is. I would just like your resigna¬ 
tion by the 1st of July.’ ” 

William B. Williams, Jr., is the son of one of the carriers longest in the ser¬ 
vice. He is 19 years old and was examined for admission to the Civil Service in 
June, 1884, attaining a standing of 90.97. He was appointed clerk in the Indian¬ 
apolis postoffice in September, 1884, and resigned therefrom by request of Post¬ 
master Jones January 9, 1886. I am informed that when requested to resign he 
asked Mr. Jones if there were any charges against him, and the reply was : u You 
have been here long enough.” No incompetency or dereliction of duty was ever men¬ 
tioned to him. His resignation was written out by the postmaster. He is now in 
the employ of the Chicago Neivs. 

UNEXPLAINED DISMISSALS. 

A number have been dismissed for no assigned reason. For instance, Edgar W. 
Chittenden lived at Anderson, and passed the Civil Service examination in June, 1884, 


15 


upon astandingof 88 per cent, being 19 years old. He was appointed clerk the August 
following and was dismissed by Mr. Jones July 15, 1885, on one days’ notice. 
James E. McGuire was a mechanic and a soldier, having served seventeen months. 
He passed the Civil Service examination in June, 1884, upon a standing of 83.8, 
being 47 years old. He was appointed carrier the following October aud was dis¬ 
missed by Mr. Jones in October, 1885. I also quote from the following: 

“ William L. Williams being sworn says that he is 32 years old and by pro¬ 
fession a letter carrier. That his father was a soldier in the Union army and died 
of exposure at the siege of Vicksburg. That he was appointed letter carrier in 
the Indianapolis postoffice in 1872, and was dismissed therefrom October 31, 1885, 
on a week’s notice. That he never was reprimanded and that he did his work 
well. That he had no talk with Jones and does not know why he was dismissed.” 

DISMISSALS ON “ CHARGES.” 

The following are cited as cases where Mr. Jones has attempted to assign a 
cause for dismissal: 

“ Oakley O. Johnson, being sworn, says that he is thirty-four years old, and is 
by trade a heading turner. That he was appointed carrier in the Indianapolis 
postoffice in 1875, and was dismissed therefrom October 31, 1885, on a written 
notice received about a week before, which was the first indication he had that he 
was to be dismissed. That on receiving said notice he went to Postmaster Jones 
and asked the reason of his dismissal, and said Jones answered : ‘ Some of you are 
incompetent and some of you stopped at home for dinner on your way to the 
the office.’ That affiant’s route was an outside route and his residence was there. 
That when he entered said office, in 1875, he found the custom existing by consent 
of the postmaster, of carriers so situated getting dinner at home before returning 
to the office from their forenoon’s work; but in no case where outgoing mail would 
be delayed thereby. That this custom had existed ever since, and was the prac¬ 
tice when said Jones became postmaster, and was never forbidden by said Jones or 
any of his agents. That James H. Deery, the new superintendent of carriers, had 
said that what had formerly been the custom would still be the law until changed. 
That affiant had not followed said custom for two months previous to his dismissal, 
for the reason that he had observed that good carriers were being dismissed, and 
he believed that said Jones was hunting for excuses to discharge the men and 
might make this one. That affiant’s standing, as shown by the records of the 
office, was high.” 

“Charles P. Sample being sworn, says that he is twenty-seven years old, and is 
a carpenter. That he was examined for admission to the civil service in June, 
1884, and attained a standing of 89.8. That he was appointed carrier on proba¬ 
tion in the Indianapolis postoffice, September, 1884, and at the end of six months 
received an absolute appointment. That he was dismissed by Postmaster Jones 
July 4, 1885. That about June 1,1885, Assistant Postmaster Dodd told him that 
John W. Howe had complained that affiant owed him a bill. That he told said 
Dodd that the debt was an honest one, and that he would pay it as soon as possible, 
and he called said Dodd’s attention to the fact that affiant was only a substitute 
carrier, and was not earning on an average over $6 a week. That his father had 
been for a longtime out of work and affiant was obliged to use his earnings to sup¬ 
port his family, and it would be impossible to pay the debt just then. That said 
Dodd replied, ‘ The first money you get, give him a dollar or two to stop his com¬ 
plaining,’ and affiant promised to pay the first money he could spare, to which said 
Dodd replied, ‘All right.’ That without further warning he was dismissed. That 
he then talked with said Dodd, who told him that there was no charges except 
that he had not paid his debts. That the debt referred to was about $10, being the 
balance of a debt incurred about December 20, 1884, for a cloak for affiant’s sister. 
That he saw Jones and Dodd together some weeks after his dismissal, and both de¬ 
nied all recollection of any complaints that affiant had not paid his debts, and they 
further said that there were no complaints to make about affiant, but that Jones had 
a right to discharge him if he wanted to.” 

But other creditors appealed without success. 

“ Sarah Simmons, being sworn, says that she is a widow, and is the owner of a 


16 


grocery store in Indianapolis. That Harry Crane, a mail carrier of the Indiana¬ 
polis postoffice appointed by Postmaster Jones is indebted to her in the sum of 
forty-seven and dollars for groceries furnished to said Crane’s family about 
four years ago by affiant’s husband, now deceased, and who was formerly the owner 
of said grocery business. That affiant helped her said husband in the store, and 
knows that said groceries were furnished. That affiant’s husband in his lifetime 
frequently asked said Crane to pay said bill, but never could get any money from 
him, although said Crane was earning good wages. That since her said husband’s 
death this affiant has asked said Crane to pay said bill, but has not been able to 
collect any part of it. That said Crane later claimed that he had made a pay¬ 
ment on said bill, and then this affiant told said Crane to pay what he claimed 
was the correct amount, but he has never paid anything. That said Crane suc¬ 
ceeded William L. Williams as mail carrier. That after he had been a mail car¬ 
rier for seven or eight months this affiant went to Postmaster Jones and told him 
of said unpaid bill, and asked him if he couldn’t do something to make said Crane 
pay the same, and said Jones said that he would advise said Crane to pay said bill, 
but that he had no power to turn him, off if he did not pay it. That said talk with Jones 
was in May, 1886, and none of said bill has been paid.” 


THE stern’s CASE—APPEAL OF THE DISCHARGED CARRIER TO THE PRESIDENT. 
To Grover Cleveland , President of the United States: 

I earnestly ask your consideration of the following facts : 

State of Indiana, County of Marion, ss: 

“Henry Sterns, being sworn, says that in 1880 he was appointed by W. R. 
Holloway, then postmaster, to the position of letter carrier in the postoffice of the 
city of Indianapolis; that he continued in said position the balance of said Hol¬ 
loway’s term, and during the four years term of his successor, James A. Wildman, 
and also under said Wildman’s successor, Aquilla Jones, until December 6, 1885. 
That he at all times performed the duties of said position in a competent and 
honest manner, and, so far as he was informed, to the satisfaction of his superiors. 
That on the evening of November 25 last, according to his custom, he rode home 
from the postoffice in a street car; that two other men were in the car with him, 
the driver being upon the platform, and the door thereto closed; that in the car 
the death of the Vice President, which had just occurred, was talked of; that the 
conversation throughout was becoming and respectful ; that neither of the other 
men was then known to this affiant, and both, at different points, left the car before 
he did; that knowing this driver from having frequently been a passenger on his 
car, just as this affiant was about to quit the car he opened the door to the driver, 
and said to him, ‘ Tom Hendricks is dead ; ’ that to the driver’s exclamation, 
‘What! ’ the affiant repeated, ‘ Hendricks is dead,’ and immediately left the car ; 
that this was all the conversation with said driver. That on Sunday, December 
6, 1885, while this affiant was about his duties in the postoffice, he was summoned 
to the office of Mr. Jones, the postmaster; that in the room during the conversa¬ 
tion which followed were the postmaster and his son John Jones [not one of the 
two employed in the postoffice], Mr. Dodd, the Assistant Postmaster, and the afore¬ 
said car driver, Frank Ash ; that Mr. Jones at once said to this affiant, ‘This man 
[pointing to the street car driver] says that you were jovial over Mr. Hendricks’s 
death, and were talking and laughing on the car all the way home that evening.’ 
That thereupon this affiant without qualification, denied the charge; that said car 
driver then repeated the charge, and this affiant again denied it, and at once offered 
to disprove the assertion if he could have time to hunt up one of the men who was 
in the car with him, whom he informed the Postmaster he would know if he saw, 
being a large man weighing about 250 pounds; 1 that Mr. Jones answered there is 
no use talking any more about it.’ That this affiant thereupon returned to his 
desk, and in less than a minute Mr. Dodd laid upon it the following communica¬ 
tion : 

“Indianapolis Postoffice, Dec. 6,1885. 

“Henry Sterns— Your services as carrier are not required after this date. 

“Aquilla Jones, Postmaster.” 

“ That the assertions of the car driver Ash were false ; that this affiant did not 
speak or act, and had no inclination to speak or act disrespectfully concerning Mr. 
Hendricks, and of the truth of this he makes his solemn oath. That on December 
14 this affiant succeeded in finding out the two men who were in the car with him 



17 


as aforesaid, one of them being Mr. John H. Stewart, president of the Bank of Com¬ 
merce, and the other Mr. A. W. Wishard, an attorney at law, both of Indianapo¬ 
lis, and to substantiate his own statements this affiant offers their affidavits, which 
follow, and to support the statement of faithful service this affiant attaches also a 
•certificate from the ex-postmaster, James A. Wildman. Henry Sterns.” 

“ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of December, 1885. 

[Seal.] “Wm. S. Hubbard, Notary Public.” 

State of Indiana, Marion County", ss : 

“John H. Stewart and Albert W. Wishard, being duly sworn, state that the 
said Stewart is the president of the Bank of Commerce, in the city of Indianapolis, 
and that said Wishard is an attorney at law in said city; that upon Wednesday, 
November 25, 1885, the said Stewart was a passenger on the Pennsylvania street 
car at a short time after 5 p. M., having taken the car at Washington street; that 
as the car passed Chas. Meyer’s cigar store, about half a square north of Washing¬ 
ton street, the affiant Wishard stepped on the car and w'alked up to the fare box, 
paid his fare, returned to the rear end of the car, where the affiant Stewart sat; 
affiant Wishard then stated to affiant Stewart that he had just heard, in Meyer’s 
cigar store, that Governor Hendricks (Vice President Hendricks) had dropped 
dead, at which statement the affiant Stewart expressed great surprise and expressed 
doubt at the report. Just at the time the foregoing conversation took place be¬ 
tween the affiants Stewart and Wishard, Mr. Henry Sterns, a mail carrier of said 
city, stepped into the car as it passed the postoffice going north on Pennsylvania 
street; as said Sterns entered the car affiant Wishard asked Sterns if the report of 
the death of Governor Hendricks had been received at the postoffice, to which said 
Sterns answered in the affirmative, saying that the report was true, after which 
said Sterns took a seat in the car, nearly opposite where affiants Stewart and 
Wishard sat. The affiants then engaged in a general conversation in regard to the 
death of Governor Hendricks, about Governor Hendricks having been in the bank 
•of which affiant Stewart is president on the day previous to his death, and about 
Governors Hendricks and Morton being the leaders in their respective parties, etc., 
in which said Sterns took no part further than to answer a question asked by affi- 
aut Wishard as to the time when the report of the death of Governor Hendricks 
first reached the postoffice. Affiant Wishard rode on the car to Pratt street, about 
nine squares from where he entered it, and affiant Stewart nearly seventeen squares, 
or near to Seventh street. And affiants both state that during the time they were 
passengers upon said car said Sterns was also a passenger, except a part of the first 
square, affiants having got on the car before said Sterns ; affiants both state that 
while they were passengers on the car the conduct of said Sterns was perfectly 
quiet and gentlemanly; that he did not express any satisfaction or gratification 
over the death of Governor Hendricks, and that any statement made by any one 
that said Sterns acted in a jovial manner over the death of Governor Hendricks is 
untrue and maliciously false. “John H. Stewart, 

“Albert W. Wishard.” 

Subscribed and sworn to this 24th day of December, 1885, by Albert W. Wish¬ 
ard. 

[Seal.] H. J. Everett, Notary Public. 

Subscribed and sworn to by John PI. Stewart, before me this 24th day of De¬ 
cember, 1885. 

[Seal.] J- M. Ridenour, Notary Public. 

I hereby certify that Henry Sterns, who was a letter carrier in the Indianapolis postoffice 
during my term of office, performed his duties faithfully and efficiently. 

J. A. Wildman, Ex-Postmaster of Indianapolis. 

The foregoing affidavits set out the truth of this matter. There was, however, 
as it appears, a short period when the driver and myself were the only persons on 
the car. As to that period it is a question which of us is. to be believed. Under 
such circumstances it is proper to refer to the personal history of the man whose 
statement was believed rather than mine. I was left alone in the world at seven 
years of age. I have worked for many different people, and have always had the 
confidence of my employers. I have always performed my duties as a citizen; 


2 


18 


the law has never had to lay hold of me. On the other hand, I call your attention 
to the following records relating to the car driver Ash : 

State of Indiana vs. Frank Ash, Albert Croply. No. 138. Felony Docket, No. 12. 

Be it remembered, that on this 27th day of January, 1881, came J. F. Hennessey and filed 
an affidavit charging the defendant with the crime of grand larceny, upon which a warrant 
was issued for the arrest of the defendant, and the Marshal, on the 27th day of January, 1881, 
returned the same served by bringing the defendant into court, and the defendant haying 
been arraigned for plea, says that he is not guilty as charged, and waives an examination. 
Whereupon I required the defendant to enter into a recognizance in the sum of one hundred 
dollars for his appearance at the first day of the next term of the Marion Circuit Court. 

Witness my signature. J. Caven, Mayor. 

The defendant failing to enter into a recognizance as required by me, I issued a mittimus 
for his commitment to jail, and delivered the same to the Marshal. J. Caven, Mayor. 

State of Indiana, Marion County, ss : 

I, the undersigned, Mayor of the city of Indianapolis, hereby certify that the foregoing is 
a true, full and complete transcript of the judgment in the above entitled cause, as the same 
remains of record in my office. 

Witness my signature and the seal of said city this 23d day of December, 1885. 

[Seal.] John L. McMaster, Mayor. 

[Statutes of Indiana, Revision of 1881.] 

Section 6213. If any accusation of the commission of any <?rime or misdemeanor shall be 
made against any infant under the age of 16 years before any grand jury, and the charge ap¬ 
pears to be supported by evidence sufficient to put the accused upon trial, the grand jurors 
may, in their discretion, instead of finding an indictment against the accused, return to the 
court that it appears to them that the accused is a suitable person to be committed to the 
guardianship of said institution (meaning the House of Refuge), and the court may thereupon 
order such commitment, if satisfied from the evidence that such commitment ought to be 
made; which hearing may be waived by the parent or guardian of such minor. 

State of Indiana, Marion County, ss ; 

Be it remembered, that heretofore, to wit, at a term of the Criminal Court of Marion coun¬ 
ty, in the State of Indiana, begun, holden and continued at the court house, in the city of In¬ 
dianapolis, on the 20th day of May, 1881, the same being the 119th judicial day of the January 
term, A. D. 1881, of the said Criminal Court of Marion county, before the Honorable James E. 
Heller, Judge of the Criminal Court of Marion county, of the State of Indiana, and sole Judge 
of the Criminal Court of Marion county, Indiana, the following proceedings were had in the 
cause of 

The State of Indiana vs. Frank Ash et al. No. 11,641. Rec. of Grand Jury to House of Refuge. 

Comes John B. Elam, prosecuting the pleas of the State of Indiana herein, and comes also 
defendant Frank Ash, in his own proper person, and the grand jury having recommended 
that the defendant, Frank Ash, be sent to the House of Refuge, and the evidence in this be¬ 
half having been heard, and the court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the de¬ 
fendant, Frank Ash, is a proper person to be committed to the care and custody of the Board 
of Managers of the House of Refuge. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court 
that the defendant, Frank Ash, be and he is hereby committeed to the care and custody of the 
Board of Managers of the House of Refuge until he is reformed or attains the age of twenty- 
one years, unless sooner legally discharged. And the Sheriff of Marion county is charged 
with the due execution of the foregoing judgment. 

State of Indiana, Marion county, ss; Marion Criminal Court: 

I, Moses G. McLain, Clerk of the Marion Criminal Court of Marion county, in the State of 
Indiana, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the proceedings 
and judgment of said court in the above entitled cause on the day and year first aforesaid, as 
appears of record in my office. 

In testimony whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and hereto affix the seal of said 
Criminal Court of Marion county at my office in the city of Indianapolis, this 23d dav of De¬ 
cember, A. D. 1885. Moses G McLain/ 

Clerk of Criminal Court of Marion county , Indiana. 


Mayor’s Office, Room 13, Court House, John L. McMaster, Mayor, G. S. Wright,") 

Prosecuting Attorney, L 

Indianapolis, Ind., December 23, 1885. j 

Robert McHatton, Esq., Plainfield, Indiana: 

Dear Sir— Will you be kind enough to furnish me with the date when Frank Ash was re¬ 
ceived in the Reform School and the date when discharged ; also the age given at the time of 
his admission. I think he was received May, 1881. Yours truly, G. S. Wright. 

Dear Sir— Frank Ash was admitted to the institution May 24, 1881 ; he was released July 
31, 1882; he was fifteen years old when admitted. Very respectfully, 

Robert McHatton. 

I am in debt for a small home and have a family to support. You will see 
from the foregoing papers that, without opportunity for defense, without warning, 
in the middle of winter when it is very difficult to get work, upon the unsupported 
statement of a man yet under age, and who already, upon a charge of grand lar- 


19 


ceny, has been confined for fourteen months in a reform school, I am dismissed 
from a position to which I was entitled under the law for good service. Further, 
I am put before the community upon whom I must depend for work in the light 
of showing indecent behavior at a time when the public was deeply shocked. I 
therefore respectfully ask you to see that justice is done me in this matter. 
Indianapolis, December 28, 1885. Henry Sterns. 

No notice was taken of this appeal. Mr. Jones evidently relied with safety on 
the Russian proverb, “ Heaven is high and the Czar is far off.” 

I do not attempt to characterize the conduct described in the following ex¬ 
tracts : 

“James M. Eades, being sworn, says that he is forty-five years old, and was a 
farmer, but is not now in any business. That he served two years and a half in the 
seventieth Indiana regiment, and lost a leg at the battle of New Hope Church. 
That he was appointed general delivery clerk in the Indianapolis postoffice in 1869, 
and was dismissed therefrom April 17, 1886. That a day or two before Mr. Jones 
took charge (in April, 1885) of the postoffice, affiant called upon him and in¬ 
formed him of the position he occupied; of the fact that he had lost a leg in the 
war, showing said Jones his wooden leg, and told him that he wouldn’t urge his. 
wooden leg as an argument for staying, but he didn’t want to work in suspense, 
and asked what would be done with him. That said Jones said : ‘You don’t want 
me to tell you right noiv?’ and affiant said he would like to know by Saturday. 
That Jones then said: ‘I won’t keep you in suspense; I will let you know by Sat¬ 
urday.’ That said Jones did not wait until Saturday, but came the next day to 
the general delivery window and said: ‘Mr. Eades, you needn’t anticipate any 
very early change; ’ to which affiant replied : ‘ Mr. Jones, very early change doesn’t 
relieve suspense a particle.’ That Jones replied: ‘Well, I’ll see you to-morrow.’ 
That on the morrow Mr. Dodd came and said: ‘ Mr. Jones and I have considered 
this matter over, and have come to the conclusion that if we let you go, we would 
have to take some one from the civil service list, and perhaps we wouldn’t think 
any more of him than we do of you, and we’ve concluded to leave you where you 
are.’ That about three weeks before April 17, 1886, Dodd came and said Mr. 
Jones would accept affiant’s resignation on April 1. That affiant replied that he 
would not resign, but if they wanted his place, they could bring a man and take it. 
That the newspapers were severe on said Jones for his broken promises, and after 
their publication, being called to his room, affiant stated to him their original con¬ 
versation, and said Jones then said that he didn’t remember affiant’s telling him 
that he had lost his leg in the army. That Jones then said that he wouldn’t be 
ready for affiant to go by the 1st, but had concluded to let him stay a year from 
the time said Jones took charge, April 19; he also said that there had been com¬ 
plaints that affiant did not look for letters for some people waiting, and that affi¬ 
ant did not know how the pressure was. That affiant has asked said Jones to give 
him the names of the persons who made such complaints; but said Jones replied 
that he did not know their names, but that if he should see those persons he would 
know them.” 

“RollinH. Blackledge, beiug sworn, says that he is twenty-five years old. 
That he was a teacher in Franklin county, Indiana, and was examined for admis¬ 
sion to the civil service in February, 1885, attaining a standing of 94.5. That he 
was a stranger at Indianapolis. That he was appointed carrier in the Indianapo¬ 
lis postoffice in March, 1885, and was dismissed therefrom June 1,1886. That the 
first he heard about his leaving the service was about April 1, 1886, when Assist¬ 
ant Postmaster Dodd told him that he understood that he was preparing for an¬ 
other pursuit, and he thought that they could compromise on the time of his leav¬ 
ing. That their intention had been to let him go April 15, but if it was agreeable 
they would make it June 1, and that he [said Dodd] could fix it with Mr. Jones. 
That he told said Dodd that he knew the men were being dismissed, and did not 
seem to have any protection under the law, and he expected to have to go, but he 
wanted to make the best time he could, and proposed the 1st of July. That said 
Dodd replied : ‘It’s as much as a bargain to get Mr. Jones to extend the time be¬ 
yond the 15th, the outside pressure is so great.’ And affiant then told him that if 
lie could not get any longer time, he should be glad to get until June 1. That 


20 


said Dodd also said that Mr. Jones had information from the Civil Service Com¬ 
mission at Washington that he could discharge whom he pleased regardless of 
cause. That said Dodd then told him to hand in his resignation. That affiant 
then began to look for other employment, and secured a place, to take which he 
left his work as a carrier a few days before June 1st, but did not hand in any res¬ 
ignation. That sometime before leaving he asked said Jones if there were any 
charges against him. And having asked and learned affiant’s name said Jones 
replied : ‘ Nothing special that I know of ; if there is anything. I’ll let you know.’ 

That on Thursday, May 27th, the day of Bynum’s convention, affiant went back and 
asked said Dodd for a recommendation, and said Dodd replied that he was so busy 
with the convention and so excited that he couldn’t attend to anything else that day, 
but would give it to him the next day. That said convention was to nominate 
a Democratic candidate for Congress. That on the Saturday following having 
gone to draw his pay affiant then told said Jones that his answer concerning 
charges was unsatisfactory and he would like to know the truth. That said 
Jones seemed very nervous and uneasy, and replied that he would have to con¬ 
sult Captain Dodd before giving affiant an answer. That affiant went back to 
his new place but in half an hour was recalled to the postoffice by telephone, 
where he found said Dodd and Jones. That said Dodd asked, ‘ What possessed 
you to ask Mr. Jones the question you did;’ and affiant replied that he had 
asked the same question before and obtained an unsatisfactory answer; that he 
had asked Mr. Jones if there were any charges that made him discharge affiant 
in preference to somebody else, and he wanted a more satisfactory answer. That 
said Dodd said he did not comprehend what affiant meant by the word dis¬ 
charge ; that he had never been discharged. That he thought affiant understood 
why he had been selected ; that he had been selected because by making a va¬ 
cancy they could get a man in out of the list examined in June, 1885, which 
was about to expire, and affiant says that that object had never been mentioned 
to him before, and he told them that they spoke of letting him go the 15th of 
April and he regarded it as a discharge, and got as much longer time as he 
could. And said Dodd then denied that there had been any danger of affiant’s 
dismissal on the 15th of April, but that as affiant was preparing for something 
else and did not expect to stay in the office long anyhow, he had resigned to 
give them a chance to take a man from that list. That affiant replied that he 
had never resigned that he knew of, but considered that he was discharged. 
That finally said Dodd said, ‘To show our good faith in this, see here what 
we have written for you,’ and he brought out a recommendation signed by him¬ 
self and Jones; he also said that the resignation had been reported to Washing¬ 
ton and would have to stand; also ‘ if you don’t want this paper and don’t want 
to resign I can’t help it,’ and he added that he thought the recommendation 
would be of great help to affiant. That affiant then asked if it was necessary 
to write a resignation, and Dodd replied that it would protect them; that they 
would have something to show if the resignation was denied. That affiant re¬ 
garding it as a hopeless case and having known them to dismiss men without 
charges and afterward get up charges against them, and wanting the recommend¬ 
ation to cut off such action, wrote out his resignation, dating it back to about 
April 15. That the following is a copy of said recommendation: 

“ ‘United States Postoffice, 

“ ‘Indianapolis, Ind., May 28,1886. 

“ ‘ Mr. Rollin H. Blackledge having resigned his position in the postoffice for other pur¬ 
suits. we cheerfully recommend him as a young man of good character, good habits and good 
capacity; and trust that he may find in some more congenial calling the appreciation he 
merits. Aquilla Jones, Sr., Postmaster. 

“ ‘ John W. Dodd, Ass't P. M.' 

“That ‘the something else ’ referred to by said Dodd arose from the fact that 
affiant in his leisure hours was learniug short-hand writing with a view to that 
business in the indefinite future; that he would have been glad to retain his posi¬ 
tion as carrier for at least several years. That he is now working as a wood work¬ 
ing machine hand at $1.75 a day. That his pay as carrier was $50 a month, and 
in one month his pay would have been advanced to $60 a month. That Oscar N. 
Wilmington was one against whom they got up charges after his dismissal.” 


21 


THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS. 

It is a curious fact that a large proportion of those who have received ap¬ 
pointments are those who, if the office had been openly run under the spoils sys¬ 
tem would have claimed them directly or vicariously as rewards for party services. 
I here give some instances. There are some good though inexperienced men, but 
there are also a lot of party workers, with a considerable contingent of low ward 
politicians, and a few are strikingly illiterate. They are largely of that class 
which it was thought the competitive system would exclude from places. 

Although Mr. Jones had stated that he had removed Wilmington solely be¬ 
cause he had promised his place to a Democrat; yet when called upon weeks 
later to answer as to his acts, he cast about for a better reason, saying, “ I have 
taken pains to learn the truth of his being an offensive partisan.” 

He submitted the following evidence : 

Indianapolis, Ind., July 27,1885. 

We, the undersigned, members of the first precinct of the First Ward of the city of 
Indianapolis, hereby certify that we personally know Oscar N. Wilmington, and that we 
know him to be an active Republican, and that he acted as challenger for the Republicans at 
the presidential election last past. Howard L. Lindsey, 64 Malott ave. 

George Miller, 64 Malott ave. 

William Timmens, 478 Lincoln ave. 

C. H. Schreckengast, 46% Malott ave. 

Fred. M. Snyder, 64 Malott ave, 

John P. Franz, 40% Malott ave. 

Schreckengast was confronted with the charge by Wilmington in the presence 
of witnesses, of whom I was one, and at once repudiated it, saying he had signed 
because he saw the names of other signers. John P. Franz said to me that he did 
not know Wilmington by sight; that persons had come around in the night wanting 
some statement against Wilmington, and that he had signed relying on their repre¬ 
sentations. Franz made a written statement of these facts, and did all he could 
to remedy the wrong done. In addition, the actual challenger, Plummer, and the 
committeeman, Carter, of Wilmington’s precinct, testified that he was at the polls 
only a few minutes, and at no time acted as challenger. The books at Wilming¬ 
ton’s office showed that he was there all day long on election day receipting for 
packages, except at dinner-time. He has never been a politician. 

By the side of the facts relating to Wilmington it is proper to place those re¬ 
lating to his successor, Henry R. Browning. The latter is a nephew of Austin H. 
Brown, a member of the Democratic National Committee. Before the June ex¬ 
amination enquiries in Browning’s interest were made about the emoluments and 
duties of Wilmington’s place. Browning was a ward politician, and since his ap¬ 
pointment he has been a delegate to a convention and has repeatedly taken partin 
primaries. To illustrate, he was present at a primary to choose delegates for the 
last congressional convention. I quote from the affidavit of a bystander: “That 
he saw said Henry R. Browning, then and now a clerk as aforesaid, at said pri¬ 
mary. That said Browning was very actively working for the renomination of 
said Bynum. That in said primary said Browning made motions and speeches, 
and took a very prominent part. That shortly before said primary opened said 
Browning, in the interest of said Bynum, had a fight with one Hennessey. That 
a large crowd was present and witnessed said fight.” 

Alfred Harrison, appointed carrier, was an active negro politician of a low 
type, with bad habits and character. When a Republican he was tried in the rail¬ 
way mail service with the result shown by the following letter : 


Post Office Department, 

Office of the General Supt. of Railway Mail Service. 

Washington, D. C., July 15, 1886. 

Lucius B. Swift, Esq., corner Washington and Meridian Sts., Indianapolis, Ind.: 

Sir : I have yours of July 9, asking that you be furnished a statement of the standing of 
Alfred Harrison, formerly a (Jerk in this service. 

In reply I would state that he was appointed a railway postal clerk upon the line between 
Indianapolis and Louisville, June 26, 1882, given an extension of three months December 23, 

1882, and dropped from the service March 22, 1883, because he did not fulfill the requirements 
of the service. He w-as iudustrious and willing to obey instructions, but he was careless and 
very slow in his distribution. He did not exhibit any aptitude for the service, and numerous 
complaints were received regarding the work upon his line while he was on it. He could not 
read very readily. 

Under date of March 22, 1883, Assistant Superintendent Lund, reported as follows: 
“Harrison seems to be absent minded and forgetful, and has to be watched in order to 
keep the mails straight. ’ ’ 

Superintendent French, in making final report in Harrison’s case under date of March 17, 

1883, stated: 

“ I would invite special attention to Mr. Harrison’s case-examinations w T hich, it will be no¬ 
ticed, have been very poor indeed. This closes Mr. Harrison’s second probationary appoint¬ 
ment. I think he has had as fair a trial as could be asked. I can not recommend that he be 
continued in the service.” 

Upon these recommendations and the statement of his case-examination record the ap¬ 
pointment of Mr. Harrison was allowed to expire. 

Very respectfully, 

Jno. Jameson, General Superintendent. 


After his appointment by Mr. Jones, the following letters appealed in the In¬ 
dianapolis Times of March 3, 1886, and were not questioned, yet the writer was re¬ 
tained in the Federal service. The first was addressed to the Eepublican candidate 
for township trustee. 

“January 30, 1884. 

“ Mr. De Ruiter: 

“Sir —The following proposition I herewith submit, that yon and I may know 
and understand each other. I am doing effectual work for you and expect to do 
so until you get the nomination and be elected. There need be some effectual work 
done yet in Center N. E., S. E., N. W. and S. W., and the city. I am now ready 
to puli off' my coat and go into this fight in all of these places among my people 
and your white friends, until the battle is fought and won. I can and will do as 
much for you as any man in the township. I have not been in a hurry in coming 
to an understanding with you ; but now I do so. My proposition now is this : For 
the above consideration I think $25 is but reasonable. You will find me as true as 
steel to your interests. You will find my footprints in every part of the township. 
I shall he present aid in holding up your arms in the convention. 

“ Beware of those men who take your confidence and open not their mouths 
for after that, I prove myself by my works. I will report to you daily of the out¬ 
look and of my work. 

“If you accept my proposition, leave an ansiver at C. C. Glass’s, 24£ East 
Washington street, February 1. And let me have $5 then and the remainder by 
installments at $5 per week until naid ($25). 

“And if you should not accept, why all so well and good. 

“Alfred Harrison.” 

The proposition was not accepted. Six months later Harrison wrote as fol¬ 
lows : 

“ Indianapolis, Ind., June 19, 1884. 

“ Mr. Coy , Chairman Democratic Commiitee: 

“Knowing the feeliDg of discord generally among our people and my feeling 
personally, I would say that if the Democracy of this county will avail itself of 
the present opportunity, there is here a great prospect of the Democracy to 
sweep the entire country next fall. My people are ripe for a general revolution 
from Eepublican domination. Now, the question is, if the county Democracy aid 
a few of us in organizing into clubs for the purpose of affecting a snre break and 
helping the Democracy to victory. There will be a break and the Eepublicans 
can never more expect a solid vote of the negro ranks. What we want is organiza- 


23 


lion among us in this county; and whatever maybe the incidental expenses in so 
doing,^ we will look to you for assistance. 

“There is a move on foot to get up a negro Democratic paper, to be run in the 
interests of the.Democracy, and I simply call your attention to these matters that 
you may avail yourself of the present and come into power. 

“Yours, A. Harrison, 

“ No. 1 Clifford avenue. 

“ E. E. Cooper, being sworn, says that he is twenty-six years old, and has 
known Alfred Harrison seven years. That about two weeks previous to the County 
Democratic Convention, held in this city in June —, 1886, affiant was at a meeting 
of a non-partisan literary association of the colored people, held in Allen Chapel 
on Broadway, this city, and said Harrison made a speech of about thirty minutes, 
in which he advised the colored people to leave the Republican party and to join 
the Democratic party, and stated in detail the advantages that had come to the 
colored people from the Cleveland administration, and he called attention to the 
fact that he had obtained a place in the postoffice, and Mr. Hill in the railway 
mail service, and Dr. Robbins had the option of a place in Washington City, and 
Scott Turner had had the offer of a place in the mail bag department of the city 
postoffice, but had declined it, thinking it wasn’t good enough. And he laid great 
stress on the fact that if, with only ten or twelve colored Democrats, they had ob¬ 
tained such political recognition, they had only to come over to the Democratic 
party in great numbers to obtain great recognition, and that the Democratic party 
had now the money and power and would probably remain in power sixteen or 
twenty years. That about a week later affiant heard said Harrison make a speech 
of about the same length and in the same vein at another literary meeting in 
South Calvary Church, on the corner of South Meridian and Morris streets. That 
said Harrison at these times was a carrier in the Indianapolis postoffice.” 

Later Harrison was arrested on a charge of forging a check, for which he was 
indicted, and is now awaiting trial. During the preliminary investigation the 
following document was brought to light and used to prove his handwriting: 

Samson Swannegan vs. Lucy V. Swannegan, June 6, 1883 : 

“Wherein A. Harrison appears for the defendant. The following proposition, though a 
digression from the ordinary course of practice, I hereinafter agree to, in consideration of the 
facts and circumstances of the case, to-wit: I will default the case and not appear when it 
shall be called, nor will I so inform my client of the matter ; and further, to better hide my 
tracks from being known, I will have legal business out of the city that day when the case is 
called up, say at Richmond, Ind., where I shall be gone when the case is called. 

“ It can be worked in this way nicely and successfully, and while she is in bed, more suc¬ 
cessfully. I will so default my client upon these terms in consideration of $10, nothing more 
or less. * And not after it is done and all over; I will only accept in advance. You may trust 
my honor as to this, my proposition, for I will do as agreed, and here stipulated. And if we 
agree as to my terms let me know at once and will then take the steps necessary to effect our 
purpose. 

“ I will, if we agree, look for and expect a settlement in terms mentioned by at least Sat¬ 
urday morning, June 9, 1883. 

“ See your client Saturday, being rule day, in room 3, you would better, if we agreed, to 
have the defendant called and the case set down for trial and let it be settled as soon as possible. 

“Yours, A. Harrison.” 

Harrison is still retained bv Mr. Jones, but be is at present under suspension. 
He was a prominent stage usher at a political meeting in Indianapolis addressed 
by Senator Voorhees September 27, last. 

I place beside the Harrison case that of Eddy and Armstead. They were car¬ 
riers when Mr. Jones came into office. Eddy had been a carrier twelve years and 
Armstead four years. Both had families and were men of good character ; their 
efficiency was of the highest. Regarding Eddy, I quote from Mr. Jones himself : 
<( You are the best carrier we’ve got in the office, and you’ve got more friends on 
your route than any other man in the office.” One morning these carriers dis¬ 
puted in the presence of the superintendent of carriers ; the dispute could have 
been stopped by a word, but it was allowed to go on, and the men came to blows. 
It would seem that this offence, compared with the offences of Harrison, would 
have much in its favor, and that, considering the high standing and many years 


24 




of good conduct and faithful and efficient service of Eddy and Armstead, a period 
of suspension would have been a severe and ample punishment. They were, how¬ 
ever, dismissed without anything that could be called a hearing, and without any 
attempt to determine if either was excusable. 

James O. George was appointed carrier. His standing as a politician is fairly 
illustrated by the following from the Indianapolis Times of September 3, 1885, re¬ 
lating to a primary of the twenty-second ward, held in the rear of a saloon. 

“Pat. Kelly was made chairman, and, obedient to the dictation of Wagner’s * 
saloon crowd, refused to allow votes to be taken by division. The Wagner crowd 
yelled ‘Aye,’ Kelly said the ‘Ayes have it,’ and all was settled. Wagner brought 
down a list of delegates. James O. George, of the eighteenth ward, moved that 
the list be elected unanimously, and Wagner’s crowd yelled ‘Aye,’ and Kelly said 
‘Carried.’ * * * * The indignation was intense, as Wagner’s crowd numbered 

thirty at the outside. A citizen of the twenty-second ward stood upon a table 
and announced that the ‘bum’ elements of the eighteenth and other wards, *' * '** 
having nominated their delegates and councilman, the citizens of the twenty-sec¬ 
ond ward, if allowed, would proceed to nominate their ticket.” 

George had already been elected a delegate from his own primary. 

The following affidavit shows his views of the duties of the politician in the 
classified service. Dr. Ferguson is a reliable citizen of Indianapolis : 


THE POSTAL SERVICE HERE. 

To the Editor of The Indianapolis News : 

For over one year I have been annoyed beyond endurance by the delay in the delivery of 
my mail, and by the loss of some of my most valued exchanges. Mail belonging to other 
parties and to other publications has often been delivered at my office, and has lain there for 
days before I have had an opportunity to return it to the carrier, while my mail has been 
bandied about in various quarters of the city before it has reached its proper destination. 
The mail of the Indiana Eclectic Medical Journal, the Indiana School Journal, the Indianpolis 
Journal, the Physio-Medical Journal and various other publications, has often been left at my 
office, as well as many private letters belonging to other parties in various parts of the city. 

I have often protested to the carrier and to Mr. Jones against such gross and inexcusable 
carelessness, but to no purpose. About two weeks ago a letter was left in my office belonging 
to a lady living at 48 East North street, where it lay for three or four days before I had an op¬ 
portunity to return it to the carrier. When I returned it to him, with the remark that ‘‘48 
North street was a long way from 19 West Ohio.” he became insolent, and gave me to under¬ 
stand that he would leave just such mail at my office as he chose, and if I did not like it I 
could go to sheol, or words to that effect. I reported him to Mr. Jones, but he paid no atten¬ 
tion to the matter. 

On the 6th of this month I wrote to the publisher of one of my exchanges, complaining 
that I had not received a copy of his publication since December, 1885, to which I received 
the following reply : 

St. Louis, July 7, 1886. 

Dr. Frank C. Ferguson: 

Dear Sir : Your favor of the 6th inst. to hand. The reason we stopped the “ Annals of 
Surgery” is that the January number was returned by your office. We have now placed you 
again on our list, etc. J. H. Chambers & Co. 

Postmaster Jones’s total unconcern for the prompt delivery and dispatch of mail; his en¬ 
tire indifference to the just complaints of our citizens and business men; his discharge of 
faithful and competent employes for no other reason than that they are Republicans, and fill¬ 
ing their places with ward heelers and party bummers, some of whom can scarcely read, has 
produced widespread distrust, and is doing the city great harm. The postal service in this city 
is a disgrace to Jones, to his party and to the State. Frank C. Ferguson. 

Editor Indiana Medical Journal. 

State of Indiana, County of Marion. 

Frank C. Ferguson, M. D., being sworn, says that the statements in the above 
letter are true. That the name of the carrier referred to is James George, and 
that said carrier was appointed by Postmaster Jones in place of an efficient carrier. 
That when remonstrated with as stated in said letter, said carrier’s words were, 
“ I’ll leave just such mail here as I like, and if you don’t like it, you may go to 
hell.” That the affiant in the presence of the carrier repeated these words and the 
other facts to Postmaster Jones, and said Jones, in a rude and insulting manner, 
told affiant that he had heard enough, and that the carrier would remain. 

Frank C. Ferguson. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of July, 1886. 

Lucius B. Swift, Notary Public. 


25 


As Mr. Jones indicated, George “ remains.” It is proper to contrast this case 
with that of Jarnes M. Eades, a crippled soldier, with many years of service satis¬ 
factory to the public at his back, whose affidavit states that having demanded his 
resignation and been severely criticised for it, Mr. Jones then said there had been 
complaints that Eades did not look for letters for people waiting. Being asked for 
their names, Mr. Jones replied that he did not know their names, but that he 
would know those persons if he should see them. 

Charles Noe, appointed carrier, had been in the service but a short time when 
he was detected stealing registered letters. He plead guilty and was sentenced by 
the United States Court to one year in the work house. His antecedents were well 
known, and were such as to put the postmaster upon the most diligent enquiry con¬ 
cerning the boy himself. Such an enquiry would have shown Noe’s complete un¬ 
fitness for appointment. The mystery of his appointment has never been ex¬ 
plained. 

Patrick Ward, appointed carrier, was formerly a hand in a mill, managed by 
Mr. Jones. He reads writing with the greatest difficulty, and while delivering 
mail, frequently called upon other persons to read the addresses of mail to be de¬ 
livered. He was put upon a route, but the people made such an outcry over his 
mistakes that he was withdrawn and set to collecting mail. His mistakes were 
such as arise only from illiteracy. He is a politician of long standing. I learn 
from entirely reliable sources that by reason of his defective education his admis¬ 
sion into the service was inexplicable to those who had known him long and 
well. 

David M. Conklin and John B. Green, appointed clerks, were employes of the 
Indianapolis Sentinel. Since his appointment, Green has been a delegate to a con¬ 
vention. William Darby, a driver, and James Cantlin, a “spotter” of the Street 
Car Company, were appointed carriers. Arthur Byfield, appointed clerk in the 
money order department, is the son of a very influential Democrat. Sometime 
later he resigned and another son, C. W. Byfield, who had not been in the service 
was appointed to the same position, and has since held it. 

George W. Kuhn, a young man appointed in place of Hans Blume, is of the 
political type known as “a hustler.” A prominent Democrat, complaining of his 
factional treachery in the Bynum congressional controversy, said, “I helped him 
to get his place.” According to the “records” he came in under the competitive 
system. Since his appointment he has peddled tickets, been a committeeman, and 
in other ways worked diligently in the primaries, and wanted to be a delegate to 
the recent Bynum convention. 

Joseph House, appointed clerk in place of Eades, was and is a chronic ward 
politician. He works hard for delegates in primaries and candidates in conven¬ 
tions. At present he is a councilman. Ed. R. Ellis, F. A. Lorenz, William R. 
Marlatt, H. W. Harrington and others, have, since appointment, done political 
work. I quote from an affidavit relating to Marlatt, and referring to a congres¬ 
sional primary: “That said Marlatt, being then such mail carrier, was present at 
said primary taking an active part therein on behalf of said Bynum; that he was 
peddling tickets for said Bynum, and handed one to this affiant.” 

One excellent carrier was dismissed on the charge of intoxication. His place 
was filled by a man who, much of the time for many months, was so far removed 
from sobriety as to make his delivery of mail a masquerade. The following is a 
specimen : 

“Not long since a letter plainly directed to Ed. E. Schroer, county recorder’s- 


26 


office, was left at the drug store, corner Seventh and Illinois streets, where it re¬ 
mained for several days, and was then returned to the carrier. In a few days it 
was again returned to the drug store, and it was a week at least before it reached 
its destination. Then there is complaint that a plainly-printed address, showing 
the mail was intended for William F. Hensley, 204 College avenue, was left with 
John H. Hensley, 16 Hall Place, a long distance away from its destination. Ihere 
has also been mail left at the drug store, as above, equally as plainly addressed to 
the care of well-known business houses on Washington street, and so it goes.” 

After this investigation was begun, and it was known to the postoffice author¬ 
ities that this carrier’s peculiarities were the subject of enquiry, he “resigned.” 


RECAPITULATION. 


Unclassified service—former incumbents... lb 

Succeeded by Democrats. lb 

Federal Building, care takers—former incumbents. 6 

Succeeded by Democrats. 6 

Classified service—former incumbents. 71 

Forced out by Postmaster Jones (all Bepublicans). 36 

Admitted under competitive system—former incumbents . H 

Forced out by Postmaster Jones (included above). 8 

Number appointed by postmaster Jones, examined June 10, 1885. 42 

Total number appointed by Postmaster Jones (all Democrats). 43 


Length of service of employes forced out of the classified service by Jones so 
far as I can learn : 


3 (3 soldiers) had served about . 


2 (2 

U 

) 

1C 

u 

.16 

a 

2 (1 

it 

) 

a 

a 


a 

1 (1 

a 

) 

u 

a 


a 

2 (1 

a 

) 

u 

a 


a 

2 (1 

a 

) 

a 


.10 

a 

2 (1 

u 

) 

a 

u 

. 9 

a 

1 (0 

a 

) 

a 

a 

. 8 

a 

1 (0 

n 

) 

a 

a 


a 

1 (0 

<1 

) 

a 

a 

. 6 

a 

3 (0 

it 

) 

a 

u 

. 5 

a 

8 (5 

It 

) 

a 

a 


less. 

8 (1 

a 

) 

a 

a 

.2 « “ 

a 


* Competitive system. 

THE EFFECT UPON THE SERVICE. 


There is unquestionably a deep seated belief in Indianapolis that the efficiency 
of its postoffice has been seriously impaired, and this, in spite of the claim that 
the “ records ” show an improvement. The places having been given out as spoils 
upon the demand of party leaders, or as Mr. Jones and Mr. Dodd express it, 
upon “ pressure,” the appointees feel a proportionate independence both of their 
superiors and of the public. From personal observation and from good authority 
I believe that the postmaster has not his new appointees in hand. A great num¬ 
ber of well authenticated complaints have been made in the public press and con¬ 
tinue to be made. Such faults as non-delivery, mis-delivery and slow delivery 
have prevailed to so wide an extent as to prove beyond question that this postoffice 
is overburdened with carelessness and inefficiency. Instances have already ap¬ 
peared in this report, and I select also the following: 

[From Labor Signal, July 24, 1886.] 

“ For the reason that the matter has been given a partisan extract by the papers of this 
city, the Signal has refrained from commenting upon the management of the Indianapolis 
postoffice, hoping that Mr. Jones would make an effort to correct evils from which the whole 
communtiy suffers, the existence of which he can not be in ignorance. Every week we have 
numerous complaints from subscribers who fail to receive their paper, and while we are will¬ 
ing to make all due allowances for oversigh t on our own part we know that copies of the paper, 


























27 


plainly addressed, have been found among waste in the basement of the postoffice. Last Sat¬ 
urday no less than a dozen subscribers residing in one neighborhood failed to get the Signal. 
•On Wednesday we mailed additional copies to each one, and up to date they have not been 
delivered. All this is very exasperating. In the eyes of Mr. Jones and some of his employes 
the Labor Signal may be of small consequence, but as soon as the postage is paid upon the 
paper, and it has passed into the custody of the government, it is entitled to as mucb consid¬ 
eration as the Sentinel or Journal, or any other paper. We have borne this imposition with¬ 
out a murmur for the reason that we did not care to join in the hue and cry against the post- 
office management. It is a matter of no concern to us whether the office is in Democratic or 
Republican hands, so long as it is properly conducted.” 


Number of letters advertised at the dates indicated. 


Wildman- 

-1884. 

Jones—1885. 


Jones—1886. 


May. 

... .491 

May. 

..551 

May. 


J une. 

.416 

June. 

..527 

June. 

..656 

July. 


July. 

..554 

July. 

..685 

August. 

.504 

August. . 

..662 

August. 

..583 

September. 

.....347 

September. 

..598 

September. 


October. 

.435 

October.. 

..646 



November. 

.503 

November . 

..752 



December . 

.400 

December. 

..707 



January. 

.480 

January.. 

..798 



February. 

.347 

February . 

..485 



March. 

.384 

March. 

..578 



April . 

.350 

April. 

.507 




It may be claimed that comparatively few of these letters were called for. 
They were not, however, advertised steadily in the same paper, but were shifted 
from one to another until the sixth has been reached, some of these having a lim¬ 
ited circulation. Mr. Jones has had an increase of two carriers. This table cor¬ 
roborates the steady complaints of the public. 

I quote from the following affidavit: 

“ Daniel Sellers, being sworn, says he is a member of the firm of Sellers Bros., 
doing business of peddlers’ exchange at Indianapolis, Ind. That said firm hauled 
waste pager from the Indianapolis postoffice to their place of business several 
times in 1885; that in August, 1885, while the women in the employ of said firm 
were sorting said waste paper affiant noticed a draft for about $1,000 in the pile 
and another smaller draft, and on examination he found several large packages 
of unopened letters, and having called up an officer from said postoffice he turned 
said letters over to him ; that said officer cautioned affiant not to say anything 
about it; that on two other occasions, a month or more apart, affiant found un¬ 
opened letters in waste paper hauled from said postoffice to said place of business; 
that about two hundred letters were found the first time and about one hundred 
the second time and one letter the third time.” 

Mr. Jones discontinued his sales of waste paper to this firm. 

An ex-colonel of the army had occasion to address members of his former 
regiment, and out of one hundred letters posted thirty-five were returned to him. 
The persons addressed lived here, but were mostly working men, and not always 
readily found. Many of the returned letters were delivered by the sender as he 
met the men on the street. 

Under the former administration of this office the mail from the West in the 
afternoon over the Vandalia Line was delivered the same day, enabling orders to 
be filled and letters answered for the night mail back. Under Mr. Jones this 
mail has not been delivered until the next morning. A commercial institution 
formerly received a daily report from Terre Haute on the last afternoon delivery, 
but the present postmaster does not deliver it until the following morning. The 
evils of the reduction of the distributing force to get a salary for the postmaster’s 
son do not appear to have been confined to the needless payment of $1,500 to him. 































28 


These instances could be prolonged indefinitely, but they are best summed up 
by the long continued open declarations by bankers and business men of want of 
confidence in the postoffice, and this irrespective of party. 

A SINGLE RULE. 

The affidavits of the dismissed men from part of which the foregoing extracts 
are given were not easily obtained. The men who have thus been deprived of their 
means of living have spoken with reluctance. They are well and favorably known 
in Indianapolis, and from personal knowledge I can speak highly of their sense of 
manliness and independence. As a rule, the older of them are efficient and faith¬ 
ful veterans, the younger are clean-handed, intelligent and active, and with each 
year must have been of greater service to the public—and this applies especially 
to those who obtained their places under the competitive system. Without a civil- 
service law the dismissal of these men would have been an injustice to them, and 
to the public ; no matter who succeeds them, the service for a long time is im¬ 
paired. A good carrier, who has delivered mail five or six years on the same 
route, can not be succeeded by any inexperienced man, who can get the same mas¬ 
tery of all the details relating to carrying mail on that route in less than a year 
at least. 

It is not meant that no removals could profitably have been made. It is clear 
that Mr. Jones might have improved the service by the gradual dismissal, for 
cause, of a few—the highest authority puts the number at six. 

We look in vain for any just rule of dismissal governing the postmaster. It 
has not been a question of improving the service. There was no better employe 
than Wilmington, whom he discharged among the first, and Fitch, among the last, 
was the best man but one in his department. No work was ever more faithfully 
done than by Oakley Johnson in his district, yet the “change” brought on his 
route Patrick Ward, who had to be taken off from the route because he could not 
deliver his mail, but who is still kept in the service; and not even a quibble could 
be raised against McClelland. It has not been personal shortcomings in employes 
for, although he dismissed a carrier on a charge of intoxication, yet he put into 
his place a man well known to yield to that habit, and did not dismiss him, al¬ 
though the condition recurred many times. He also appointed the negro Harrison, 
and kept him after it was shown that he had offered to sell his services in a polit¬ 
ical campaign ; and still keeps him although he has since been shown, as an attor¬ 
ney, to have shamefully sold out a client for money. It is not a question of dis¬ 
courtesy to the public, for although after sharp criticism by the newspapers he 
recollected having heard a complaint against Eades, yet he refused even to repri¬ 
mand George for his ruffianly insolence; and of the rudeness of Kuhn, the successor 
of Blume, there are many complaints. It is not a question of former partisan ad¬ 
mission to the service; for he has dismissed eight of the eleven who had obtained 
their places under the competitive system, Wood among the first, and Sclimedel 
and Blackledge among the last, all admirable men; while he has appointed House, 
Kuhn, George, Reed, Cantlin and Darby, who all were active small politicians. 

It is not a question of non-partisan conduct in the service, for since his un¬ 
founded charges in one case he has not even pretended that partisanship was a 
reason, and of the great bulk of those dismissed it could not truthfully have been 
alleged, and he has retained in the service an employe who had been very con¬ 
spicuous in ward work. And further, he has allowed his own appointees to go to 
all party lengths in wards, caucuses and conventions. 

He once excused his acts in a newspaper interview, saying: “ I want to or- 


29 


ganize my office though in a way that I will not be required to speak in a whisper 
while in it. I do not see that the Democratic party is either advanced or encouraged by 
retaining in office a class whose sole duty seems to be in the line of spies and in¬ 
formers.” This simply means that to advance the Democratic party the blunders 
of the postoffice are to be concealed, and it is proved by the fact that when a jani¬ 
tor appointed by him reported the facts to the Labor Signal , upon which the above 
complaints were based, Mr. Jones lectured the janitorial force in the basement 
upon his requirement that no occurrence in the office should be mentioned outside. 

The only rule governing him is to be drawn from his own repeated declara¬ 
tions, and that is the rule of making a vacancy and working a Democrat into it, 
all in answer to “pressure” by his party politicians who exacted places for rela¬ 
tions and workers. In a single year he forced out of the classified service more 
than half of the original employes, every one of whom was a Republican. Al¬ 
though working under the competitive system he has never appointed a man who 
was not a Democrat. Doubtless the examination and other records appear regular. 
But civil service reformers, Republicans and Democrats alike, believe that Mr. 
Jones and Mr. Dodd have not honestly administered the law. 

After the following from the Democratic state organ, the Indianapolis Sentinel 
of July 14, 1886, this statement will hardly be questioned : 

“A DIRECT ANSWER.” 

“ The law [the civil service law] says to everybody in our Indianapolis postoffice, for ex¬ 
ample, ‘ So long as you honestly perform your duty you shall retain your place.’ Has this 
law been honestly and fairly followed in our postoffice ? Let us have a direct answer to this 
question.— News. 

“And we answer, no, it has not; it never was, and, until employes of the gov¬ 
ernment cease to identify themselves with the party of power, and cease to obstruct 
the party of opposition, it never will be, nor ever should be.”— Sentinel. 

Upon his rule Mr. Jones has acted until he has made his office simply a part 
of the party machine. The competitive system, which before brought in such 
young men as Wood, Chittenden, Williams, Schmedel and Blackledge, ostensibly 
now brings in “Pat” Ward, “Jim” George, “Mugwump” Harrison, “Joe” House, 
and others of like savor. 

The list of eligibles is now so arranged that no one not a Democrat can be ap¬ 
pointed. The life of the law, confidence that competitors will be fairly dealt with, 
and that a period of probation and low pay will be followed by a tenure depend¬ 
ing upon “ efficiency, fitness and devotion to public duty,” has been completely 
destroyed. It would be a waste of time for any one not a Democrat to appear at 
an examination. And now the postmaster and his friends, when asked why none 
but Democrats are appointed, answer that no others apply for examination. This 
is the natural result of entrusting the execution of a reform law to an officer who 
says publicly, “ I despise it.” Acting under that feeling, instead of being governed 
by a high sense of duty as an impartial public officer, the management of this 
postoffice by Mr. Jones will be a lasting discredit to him. 

POSTOFFICES—SECOND CLASS. 

These are sixteen in number, and in fifteen the fonner postmasters have been 
succeeded by Democrats. In most of these the employes have been almost entirely 
changed. In several, as Evansville, Fort Wayne, Terre Haute and Lafayette, 
the number of employs has been increased by one to three. The figures showing 
former incumbents and their successors include the postmasters: 


30 


Evansville— Former incumbents.22 

Succeeded by Democrats.20 

Additional Democrats appointed. & 

Terre Haute— Former incumbents. 17 

Succeeded by Democrats.17 

Additional Democrats appointed. 2 

Fort Wayne— Former incumbents..17 

Succeeded by Democrats.14 

Additional Democrat appointed. 1 

Richmond— Former incumbents.16 

Succeeded by Democrats.11 

Lafayette— Former incumbents.13 

Succeeded by Democrats. .13 

Additional Democrat appointed. 1 

South Bend— Former incumbents.12 

Succeeded by Democrats.11 

New Albany— Former incumbents. 7 

Succeeded by Democrats. 6 

Logansport— Former incumbents. 7 

Succeeded by Democrats.. . 6 

Vacancy not filled. 1 

Valparaiso— Former incumbents. 6 

Succeeded by Democrats. 3 

Vacancy not filled. 1 

Vincennes— Former incumbents. 5 

Succeeded by Democrats. 4 

Crawfordsville—Former incumbents. 5 

Succeeded by Democrats. 2 

Peru— Former incumbents. 4 

Succeeded by Democrats. 4 

Madison— Former incumbents. 4 

Succeeded by Democrats. 3 

Elkhart— Former incumbents. 6 

Succeeded by Democrats. 5 

Laporte— Former incumbents. 3 

Succeeded by Democrats. 3 


In the Evansville postoffice the money order clerk was dismissed, but had to 
be recalled because his successor could not fill the place. Some of the carriers 
dismissed had been carriers since that service was introduced in 1873. In the 
South Bend office the one employe retained was the daughter of a Democrat. In 
the New Albany office the one employe retained was a Democrat. In the Peru 
office the present postmaster notified the former employes through his predecessor 
to leave with the latter. One new employe is a son and one is a daughter of the 
chairman of the Democratic committee and who went to Washington andsecuredtho 
postmaster’s appointment. He and his two male employes have been active in prim¬ 
aries and conventions as ticket peddlers and in other capacities, and bestirred 
themselves especially for a nomination sought by the above named chairman. 
Postmaster Booe, of Crawfordsville, although appointed some months since, did 
not take charge of his office until September 1. He has discharged one good clerk, 
a widow, and appointed to her place a young ward worker, usually as challenger. 

POSTOFFICES—THIRD CLASS. 

There are seventy-six third class offices, and in sixty-eight the postmasters 
have been succeeded by Democrats. Attica is one of the remaining eight. The 






































31 


present postmaster is editor of the Attica Ledger , and for several months he ha& 
had the names of Blaine and Logan at the head of his columns as candidates for 
1888. A majority of the patrons of the office, and the entire bodies of the local 
Grand Army of the Republic and of the Knights of Labor endeavored to secure 
the appointment of Martin Schoonover as postmaster. At this juncture Hon. J. 
E. McDonald made application to have his nephew, George McDonald, appointed. 
This raised an issue between the citizens of the town and Mr. McDonald, which is 
not yet decided. In the meantime the former incumbent of the office enjoys the 
emoluments and labors in the interest of Blaine and Logan. 

Another of the eight is the office at Notre Dame. This is held by a priest of 
the university, and is presumably of their own selection. 

The Brazil office is yet unchanged. Two Democrats have applied for it, and 
it is claimed that both have Mr. Lamb’s promise of support in writing. The 
change dragged, and the Democrats, hoping to hasten it, held an election in March 
last, five hundred and sixty-five, being nearly all, voting. John J. Lynch was 
chosen, and Mr. Lamb, then District Attorney, was notified. Lynch never re¬ 
ceived the office, which, it is claimed, is now promised to another man to be de¬ 
livered after election. 

POSTOFFICES—FOURTH CLASS. 

There are about 1,800 of the fourth class offices. The best information I can 
get indicates that in about 1,200 the postmasters have been changed. This infor¬ 
mation also indicates that the 600 unchanged offices are not, as a rule, desirable 
places, being largely cross-roads postoffices. With many of these it has always 
been difficult to get persons to perform the duties. The emoluments run from $20 
to $50 a year. Shelby county is an illustration. It has twenty-seven postoffices, of 
which only nine are changed, but the remainder are such insignificant offices that 
it would be a matter of considerable time and trouble to replace the present in¬ 
cumbents. 

The following are fair instances of the changes: 


County. 

No. of offices. 

Changes. 

Wayne. 

.27 

18 


Tipton. 

.13 

9 

• 

Elkhart .... 

.15 

14 


Gibson . 

.13 

11 


Morgan. 

.20 

12 


Parke. 

.30 

24 


Vermillion 

.11 

9 


Scott . 

. 9 

6 


Randolph.. 

.36 

34 


Spencer . 

.22 

14 


Hendricks.. 

..28 

26 


Hancock... 

.20 

18 


Knox. 

.16 

10 


Hamilton .. 

.25 

19 

[Difficult to find available postmasters.] 

Sullivan .... 

.17 

14 

[The three holding over are Democrats.] 

Putnam. 


24 

[One remaining incumbent a crippled soldier— 
Democrats petitioned Congressman Matson to 
retain.] 

Benton. 


13 

[Husband of one holding over a Democrat.] 



















32 


Marshall. 

...19 

16 

Bartholomew... 

,...18 

10 

St. Joseph. 

...15 

10 

Warren . 

...13 

7 

Floyd . 

... 8 

4 


[The three holding over are Democrats.] 

[Two holding over are Democrats. For four offi¬ 
ces no available Democrats.] 

[Remaining offices except one are cross-roads.] 
[One holding over a Democrat.] 

[Three were Democrats. Congressman How¬ 
ard removed one of these and put in a 
henchman. Two holding over are women, one 
an old lady long in service.] 


Grant . 

.27 

10 

[Eight holding over are Democrats, and for two 
offices no available Democrat.] 

Perry. 

.22 

10 

[Most of the small offices always held by Demo¬ 
crats.] 

Shelby . 

.27 

9 

[Remaining offices small, hard to fill.] 

Starke . 


3 

[One holding over a Democrat; has been in fifteen 
years ; other offices small, hard to fill.] 

Johnson . 

.17 

17 

[Possibly a slight error.] 

Madison. 

.20 

20 

a a a 

Boone . 

. 17 

17 

a a a 

Marion . 

.30 

30 

a a a 

Martin. 


11 

a a u 

Rush. 

.17 

4 

[A notable exception.] 


marshal’s office. 


Former incumbents...*.'.. 8 

Succeeded by Democrats- . 7 


PENSION OFFICE. 

Former incumbents. 8 

Succeeded by Democrats. 3 

Additional Democrats appointed. 7 

[The system has been changed, and while the number of clerks has been in¬ 
creased, the agent says that the cost to the government is less. The number of 
pensioners has increased 3,500. Of the medical examining boards two-thirds of the 
former incumbents seem to have been succeeded by Democrats. The same is be¬ 
lieved to be true of the special examiners.] 

THE CUSTOM HOUSE AT INDIANAPOLIS. 


Former incumbents. 4 

Succeeded by Democrats. 4 


GOVERNMENT DEPOT AT JEFFERSONVILLE. 


Former incumbents. 

Succeeded by Democrats 


DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. 


Former incumbents. 2 

Succeeded by Democrats. 2 

COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

Indianapolis District. 

Former incumbents.:.56 

Succeeded by Democrats.53 

Soldiers formerly employed.52 

Soldiers now employed. 4 
































33 


Kokomo District. 

Former incumbents.16 

Succeeded by Democrats.16 

Terre Haute District. • 

Former incumbents.22 

Succeeded by Democrats.22 


The Railway Mail Service. 

The headquarters of the division embracing Indiana are at Cincinnati, and 
the routes of the clerks are not limited by State lines. So far as changes have 
been made the spoils system has been followed and the places not being peculiar 
to congressional districts, there appears to have been something in the nature of a 
free-for-all race by congressmen, each getting as many as he could. Congressman 
Matson boasts that all but two in his share have been put out. This investigation 
covers only that part of the service running in or through Indianapolis. There are 
two heavy mail lines running through this city ; the Pan Handle line from Pitts¬ 
burgh to Indianapolis with fifty-five men and the Vandalia line its continuation to 
St. Louis with forty-nine men, form one ; the other is the Kankakee line from Cin¬ 
cinnati to Chicago with thirty-six men. There are nine smaller lines with a total 
of forty-six men. All of these men except the thirty-six on the Kankakee line 
are under Chief Clerk Hitt at Indianapolis, and are examined by him. I have 
applied to Division Superintendent Gwin and Chief Clerk Hitt for exact informa¬ 
tion as to the number of changes on the above lines, but no replies have been 
received. Chief Clerk Hitt in conversation stated that of the 150 men under him he 
thought sixty had been changed. Other authority states that about forty of 
the former incumbents remain. This is believed to be nearly correct. The ser¬ 
vice here has been thrown into disorder. Bankers, business men and manufac¬ 
turers are almost infallible in this matter, and they have for months complained 
steadily irrespective of party. Out of hundreds of proofs I select a few. 

I happened recently to be in the office of a large wholesale firm of this city 
when the carrier came in with the mail, and the delivery was followed by an irri¬ 
tation now common. I found that a customer at Frankfort, forty miles out, had 
mailed a registered letter with money and an order for goods. This should have 
been delivered the next day in time to send the goods to Frankfort the'same after¬ 
noon. The goods not coming, the customer came down the second morning to see 
what the matter was, and the letter was not delivered until some hours after his 
arrival. Large quantities of unworked mail, before rarely seen, have been a daily 
sight. For instauce, on the Yandalia Line, from 40 to 160 sacks of mail have been 
going into St. Louis four days in the week unworked. And what is without pre¬ 
cedent, the Illinois mail from the East has reached Indianapolis with as high as 
twenty-three sacks unworked. This mail should be worked, and formerly was 
worked, before reaching Indianapolis. Mail that formerly went into Peoria 
worked ready to be forwarded on different roads, now goes in a heap to the Peoria 
postoffice; the delay is evident. In leaving Indianapolis the men are not nimble 
enough to separate the mail for the first stations, but comparatively large quanti¬ 
ties are now carried past to be returned some hours later. Mail plainly directed 
constantly travels hundreds of miles unnecessarily because the new clerks have not 
learned their schemes or can not read writing readily. Of other lines running 

3 






34 


through Indiana, the Ohio and Mississippi line has carried into St. Louis as high 
as 119 sacks unworked. And the Wabash line is in equally bad condition. The 
aggregate of these and similar defects has, since the changes in this service began, 
grown steadily, until it has become a great public inconvenience, and financially 
a serious loss. 

The railway mail service was possessed of a fine body of trained men, and the 
service was justly a pride to them and a satisfaction to the public. Its high state 
of efficiency had been reached in spite of the spoils system and under an extended 
suspension of its rules. The requirements had become rigid, the examinations 
were thorough and the officers and men worked with growing reliance upon the 
public wish that their tenure of place should depend upon fitness and faithfulness 
alone. The collapse has been complete. These men have here been largely dis- * 
placed by politicians, who were given their positions as a reward for past or future 
services to a congressman. They can not do the work, first,because they are with¬ 
out experience, and second, because the bulk of them are inferior men. Formerly 
a permanent appointment in this division was obtained upon an average of 
ninety-five per cent, in six examinations during the six months of probation. 
Now men are appointed permanently after only two examinations, averaging less 
than ninety per cent. The negro politician, James T. Hill, was one of these. Be¬ 
fore about one-half of the probationers failed to reach the standard entitling them 
to an appointment. Now, although a great number have been recently put on pro¬ 
bation, it is a rare occurrence for one to fail. The records of the service will 
show these facts. This has no reference to those who were probationers March 4, 
1885, and who were, dropped for political reasons. I can assert, almost without 
fear of contradiction, that the demoralization of this service is at present beyond 
control, and this demoralization has not yet reached the highest point; that will 
be reached when the heavy autumn and winter mails are put upon the cars. 
There is only one near remedy by which the service could in any considerable 
degree be restored, and that is the heroic measure of disestablishing the congress¬ 
men, of dismissing nine-tenths of their appointees and restoring to the service the 
trained men who have been put out on various pretexts. In the course of time if 
the power of congressmen does not prevent the resumption of rigid rules and tests 
coupled with a weeding out of worthless new appointees the service may be re- 
taught, esprit de corp may return and former efficiency may be restored. 

FORMER INCUMBENTS —REMOVALS FOR CAUSE. 

In accomplishing removals doubtless the word of a congressman has gone a 
good way; but it would seem that in most cases he has brought forward evidence. 
A henchman of his has wanted a place. The place is picked out, a charge is pre¬ 
pared, usually by the henchman, the incumbent is dismissed and the henchman ap¬ 
pointed. This has been the course of the bulk of appointments to those places 
where vacancies have been made for cause. With extremely rare exceptions the 
accused has not been allowed to see the charges, or to know the names of his ac¬ 
cusers. Charges have not been required in all cases. For instance, a postmaster 
or a revenue collector, having secured his place, has proceeded like a conqueror 
of a province to clear out those under him and put in his own henchmen or his 
congressman’s henchmen. The foregoing tables show how thoroughly this work 
has been done. There has been no pretense of a cause. 

NEW APPOINTEES—CAUSE FOR REMOVAL. 

Before entering into details it is better to note some interpretations bv the Ad¬ 
ministration of the terms “offensive partisanship.” Bobert L. Taylor was pension 


35 


agent at Knoxville, and, being anxious to attend a convention where he expected 
to be nominated for governor, he wrote, in August last, asking permission to do so. 
The Administration withheld permission, saying: “ While no doubt exists as to 

your good faith in your proposed action, your presence at the convention will 
place you and the Administration, if not in a false position, in one subject to mis¬ 
construction.” 

J. B. Hill, marshal of the eastern district of North Carolina, was suspended. 
Of this Attorney General Garland wrote, July 27, 1886 : “I beg leave to say that 
the President authorizes me to state that such suspension was made for the sole 
reason that Mr. Hill left his home in Raleigh in 1884, while he was marshal of 
the United States, and went to the Republican Convention of the First Congres¬ 
sional District—in which he had lived before his removal to Raleigh, but from 
which he had removed many years since—and by an active canvass succeeded in 
having himself appointed by said convention in the capacity of delegate, and par¬ 
ticipated in the proceedings of the samb.” 

With this measure of offensive partisanship in view the following facts should 
be considered : 

CONGRESSMAN HOWARD’S DISTRICT. 

Mr. Howard was unfortunate in his distribution of spoils. He appears usually 
to have settled upon a man for a place, but to have lost nerve at the outcry against 
the proposed appointment, and then to have shifted to some one else, thereby rais¬ 
ing a turmoil which he could not quiet. In consequence, his efforts for renomin¬ 
ation were met by open rebellion. He, therefore, was obliged to marshal his place¬ 
holders, whom he disciplined by removing a lukewarm Democratic postmaster, 
and putting in his place a man of more zeal. In a speech, at New Albany, Sep¬ 
tember 23d last, to an audience in which Federal place-holders were a conspicuous 
element, Mr. Howard denounced civil-service reform in unmeasured terms, and 
referred to the departments at Washington as places at which no Democrats need 
apply. 

F. M. Stockslager headed the opposition, although he was holding the office of 
Assistant Land Commissioner at Washington, He worked actively before and at 
primaries, and participated in an anti-Howard convention, whose congressional 
nominee he became. He has since, however, withdrawn, but another candidate has 
been substituted. 

Harvey S. Wolf, Corydon, pension examiner, took a very active part in a 
county convention, making more motions and speeches than any other person pres¬ 
ent. He was also a delegate to the congressional convention. W. H. Ramsey,, 
postmaster at Ramsey, was recently a candidate for recorder. W. B. Douglas, as¬ 
sistant postmaster at Corydon, was a candidate before the county convention for 
representative, and defeated. B. K. Gladdon,postmaster at Lexington, is an active 
politician, and is now a candidate for county auditor. Oscar Allen, postmaster at 
Brownstown, was recently a candidate for recorder. A. A. Davisson, postmaster, 
is chairman of the Democratic county committee. Wm. Fultz, postmaster at 
Crothersville, is member of the Democratic county committee. G. W. Jenkins, 
postmaster at Crandall, was a delegate to the county convention. M. Hubbard, 
postmaster at Scottsburg, and mail agent J. A. Miller, Corydon, are reported as 
continuing active party work. John B. Mitchell, postmaster at New Albany, is a 
large stockholder in the New Albany Ledger, and I am credibly informed continues 
actively to shape the course of that paper. 

JOHN E. LAMB’S DISTRICT. 

John E. Lamb was a candidate for Congress in 1884, and was defeated. He 
was anxious to be elected to Congress, and, therefore, the General Assembly of 1885 
arranged a district for him. His nomination was not desired by the better ele- 


36 


ments of his party, but a year ago Senator Voorhees gave notice that the nomina¬ 
tion would have to be made. In the meantime he made Mr. Lamb District At¬ 
torney. But, on account of the protests of many respectable people, he was 
never confirmed. The patronage of his district was divided with an eye single to 
his congressional nomination, more than thirty appointments, aggregating salaries 
of over $50,000 having been distributed in Terre Haute alone. Mr. Lamb, though 
holding his Federal office, attended in person the convention at Rockville which 
nominated him. Here are other prominent instances of party work in this district: 

John F. Regan, postmaster at Terre Haute, has been the chief manager in 
“ setting up” delegations in wards and townships in Mr. Lamb’s interest. 

John G. McNutt, assistant district attorney, is the secretary of the Vigo 
county committee. John A. Booe, appointed postmaster at Crawfordsville, was 
chairman of the county committee. Postmasters Donaldson at Ladoga, Lynch at 
Darlington, Mitchell at Alino, were all active workers in “settingup” delega¬ 
tions for John E. Lamb. Postmasters Witterwood at Newport, Bell at Eugene, 
Vansickle at Hillsdale, Edwards at Summit Grove, Brenner at Quaker Hill, and 
John Redmond and James Chipp, in the revenue service, have been active in party 
work. D. M. Blue, postmaster at Meron, attended the county and congressional 
conventions. Postmasters Gravemeier at Dugger, and Snapp at Carlisle, have 
been active in convention work. 

Peter Gfroerer, appointed gauger, was, until the paper stopped publication, two 
months ago, the editor of the Terre Haute Banner. 

CONGRESSMAN LOWRY’S DISTRICT. 

Mr. Lowry built up a great reputation as a getter of places. It is claimed 
that he has secured over one hundred. He calls such positions “ patronage pie.” 
His course is truthfully indicated by the following extract from an open letter of 
P. S. O’Rourke: 

“ * >:< * * The Democratic victory of 1884 was not a victory of the Democratic party or 
its principles; but a victory for spoilsmen, who have resolved themselves in this district into 
a machine for the support of Mr. Lowry, thus constituting a Lowry party. Postmaster Kaough, 
instead of employing his time attending to the duties of his office, is looking after the interest 
of his political master; but not satisfied in doing this in his own county, must go over into 
Whitley county to assist Postmaster Brown, while both are assisted by two newly appointed 
mail agents. 

“ These federal officeholders, with most of the postmasters in this district, managed and 
manipulated by Mr. Cope, take the various counties in detail, and as the primaries take place in 
each at a different time, they are able to put their paid army in the field, each soldier of which 
is made to understand that he is working for his bread and butter. I have some warm friends 
in the various townships, and in this city, who would be willing to contest, even against such 
odds; bup the struggle is too unequal, and the power of corruption too great for me to allow 
my friends to fight such a combination, hence I will not be a candidate for the nomination.” 

I have in attempting to get the names of Federal place holders who have done 
party work in this district been repeatedly met with the fact that it was a use¬ 
less labor, because all had been actively thus at work. A reliable correspond¬ 
ent writes, “All the postmasters in the district were either delegates at the conven¬ 
tion or were leaders and advisers on the floor of the convention.” Another says, 
“ When I say every postmaster in the district [was working in the Lowry convention] 
I mean it literally.” 

The following are leading examples : 

William Kaough, postmaster of Fort Wayne, was the chairman of the Dem¬ 
ocratic county committee in the campaign of 1884. Since his appointment he 
has given much of his time to a public participation in political affairs. The day 
that congressional primaries were held he stood at the polls in Lowry’s interest. 
His carriers were similarly employed. At the convention, though not a delegate, 
Kaough was recognized as the director of the Lowry men. He also had full charge 
of naming the delegates in his county, and when adjoining counties held their pri¬ 
maries he went over and took a hand. He was perhaps the most active man in 
the whole district in securing Lowry’s nomination. The superintendent of the 
government building and his clerk were delegates to the convention. 


37 


J. Frank Snyder, postmaster at LaGrange, is the owner of the Democrat , and 
since his appointment has taken in a partner and still edits the paper. This pa¬ 
per in the factional congressional fight has worked in the interest of Lowry. In 
the county primaries anti-Lowry delegates were chosen for the congressional con¬ 
vention. Mr. Snyder published a card in his paper for another primary which 
convened. This he attended, and this time delegates favorable to Lowry were 
chosen. Snyder’s wing is known as the postmaster’s machine. 

James E. McDonald, postmaster at Ligonier, is one of the editors of the Li- 
gonier Banner. He is also secretary of the county committee. 

The following postmasters, Smith, at Kendallville; Yogeding, at Avilla; 
Chapman, at Rome City ; Borland, at Auburn; Erich, at Spencerville, have been 
hard at work in primary, convention or otherwise. Eli W. Brown, postmaster at Col¬ 
umbia City, met as a member with the Democratic congresssional committee at Fort 
Wayne, and has been Postmaster Kaough’s right hand man in his work for Mr. 
Lowry. Herman Freygang, postmaster at Angola, also met with the above com¬ 
mittee. Kelly, postmaster at Waterloo, in the interest of Mr. Lowry, engaged in 
a personal encounter at the township convention in March last. C. A. Zollinger, 
pension agent at Indianapolis, was a member of the Democratic State Committee 
and continued so for several months. He was also a member of the Democratic 
congressional committee of Mr. Lowry’s district, and met with it as chairman in 
March last. 

CONGRESSMAN MATSON’S DISTRICT. 

Mr. Matson was vigorously opposed for re-nomination and it required very 
earnest efforts by his place holders to secure it. In a speech at a recent conven¬ 
tion in Danville he prided himself on having in such a short time removed all but 
two of the postal clerks in his district, and in having put all of the postoffices into 
the hands of Democrats except a few not wanted by Democrats. 

Postmasters Brown, at Franklin ; Calvin, at Nashville; Wilson, at Greenwood ; 
Voyles, at Elizabethtown; Dotihost, at Jonesville ; Fields, at Spencer; Spellman, 
at Gosport, were hard workers for him at the convention and before it. Dr. F. A. 
Schell, a Federal employe at Washington ; James R. Fritts, pension agent, head¬ 
quarters at Chicago, and Frank Duncan, from Terre Haute, left their duties in 
order to return to work for Mr. Matson. Drs. W. H. Lopp and K. D. Hawley,, 
pension surgeons also, were earnest laborers in this field, 

E. W. Callis, postmaster at Martinsville and editor of the Gazette , attended the 
convention. “ He wore a Mitchell badge apd carried a Mitchell cane and worked 
for Matson’s re-nomination.” 

Ira Bray, postmaster at Monrovia, is a correspondent of a Democratic news¬ 
paper, a member of the Democratic county committee, pays no attention to his 
office, is now a candidate for county treasurer, and has attended the congressional 
and judicial conventions and all the primaries of his party. 

J. M. Fry, postmaster at Mahalasville, has been a candidate for township trus¬ 
tee and has attended three conventions. Levin Gamble, postmaster at Brooklyn, 
has attended the congressional and judicial conventions, and is now a candidate 
for auditor. Levi Paddock, postmaster at Waverlv, has attended two conventions 
and has been a candidate for township trustee. Postmasters Secrist, at Alaska; 
Rooker, at Mooresville ; Richardson, at Centerton ; Mannon, at Eminence ; Wing- 
ler, at Wakeland, have attended the congressional and judicial conventions. All 
the above postmasters are correspondents of some Democratic newspaper. 

R. H. Tarleton, pension surgeon, has attended three conventions, and besides 
been a candidate for mayor of Martiusville, and is now a candidate for county 
treasurer. 

W. L. Cox, pension examiner, is chairman of the Democratic county com¬ 
mittee. Henry J. Fettus, postmaster at Bloomington, is the editor of the Saturday 
Courier. Fettus gave as a reason for his appointment as postmaster that it would 
relieve the Democratic party of the burden of supporting his paper. George E. k in- 
ney, postmaster at Columbus, is the editor and proprietor of the Columbus Daily 
and Weekly Herald. W. R. Slater, appointed land agent, was at that time editor of 
the Franklin Jacksonian. 


38 


CONGRESSMAN HOLMAN’S DISTRICT. 

Mr. Holman found great difficulty in securing a renomination, and therefore 
in his district also, the party work of place holders centers at the congressional 
convention. His views are indicated by the fact that he “objected” to the last 
appropriation to carry out the Pendleton Act. 

W. D. H. Hunter, Collector of Internal Revenue, is the editor and pioprietor 
of the Lawrenceburgh Register. At the county convention, June 5, he was a delegate, 
and chairman of the committee on resolutions. At the congressional convention, 
June 16, he was the most active worker for the renomination of Congressman Hol¬ 
man. He was at Greensburgh before the convention, “setting the pins,” and there 
during the convention as a Holman manager until the close. The delegates ap¬ 
pear to have come to the hall headed by Mr. Hunter. In addition he had his 
deputies, gaugers, and five postal clerks hard at work. Three of these clerks were 
off duty upon the day of their run. 

Storekeepers Miller, Grayson, Billings, Kennedy, White, Gold and Dodd, 
Gaugers Leibecke, Clay pool, Webster and Kellar, Postmasters Huber, at Law¬ 
renceburgh, Jenkins, at St. Paul, Thieband, at Vevay, Egan, at Liberty, Barnett, 
at Madison ; from the revenue service, Gibbs, Armstrong, Captain Rief, and Mc¬ 
Cullough, E. D. Bannister, Indian agent, Dr. Brandt, Federal placeholder, Doctors 
J. T. Hitt, W. F. Riley, pension examiners, are some of the placeholding henchmen 
of Mr. Holman, who, as delegates or workers, insolently and defiantly labored at 
primary, convention, and elsewhere, to secure the renomination of their patron. 

Gold was a delegate to the county convention, and a member of the com¬ 
mittee on resolutions. Dodd was a delegate and chairman in the recent leg¬ 
islative convention. Huber, in the county convention, was chairman of the com¬ 
mittee on credentials. Thieband has been so much engaged in his political work 
as to leave his postoffice in the charge of a subordinate. His predecessor, A. E. 
Shaw, was removed upon a series of charges, part of which were false and the rest 
trifling deviations from rule. Egan was so ardent a supporter of Mr. Holman as 
to neglect his office and be offensive to the members of his own party. Barnett 
was chairman of the Democratic county committee in 1884 and is the owner of the 
Herald. Captain Rief was a delegate and teller at the county convention. Bannister, 
a member until recently of the Democratic State committee, returned from his 
Indian agency, and for several weeks journeyed among his old neighbors in the 
interest of Mr. Holman. He was president of the county convention. Postmasters 
Buxton, and Zacherias, at Kent, have been active in party work. Zacherias was a 
delegate to the legislative convention at Brookville. 

From four, and as I believe reliable, sources it is stated that from Collector 
Bishop’s district two employes, under the charge of Guager Lemon, came from Cin¬ 
cinnati two days before the convention with a large box. They engaged rooms at 
the hotel where Congressman Holman was stopping, and set up a bar. One corre¬ 
spondent writes: “Some of my friends visited the room, and they told me it was a 
first-class bar, with Lemon as barkeeper. * * * They would take delegates 

that were outspoken Cravens men into the room and in a short time send them out 
full , and with a Holman badge on them.” 

CONGRESSMAN BYNUM’S DISTRICT. 

Although this district has Federal offices which do not belong exclusively to 
Mr. Bynum, yet the party work of place holders chiefly relates to him. By no 
other means could he have secured a renomination. In a speech to the delegates, 
he said: “I know that the Democrats of Indiana are somewhat lukewarm over the 
policy of the Administration. I know that they do not iudorse the civil-service 
law as it now exists and is administered, and I fully share in this sentiment.” 
Much of the following work was done under his personal supervision. 

AUGUST M. KUHN. 

August M. Kuhn was appointed Collector of Customs at Indianapolis on the 
recommendation of Congressman Bynum. In addition he continues to run a coal 


39 


business. He has three deputies, and the following facts show that he has not been 
or allowed his deputies to be unmindful of Mr. Bynum’s interest. Since his ap¬ 
pointment he has been a persistent, violent and disreputable party worker, and a 
most useful tool of his Congressman. 

The following is from an affidavit: 

“ William C. Newcomb, being sworn, says that in the year 1885 he was a Re¬ 
publican member of the Indianapolis Common Council. That he knows A. M. 
Kuhn, collector of customs at Indianapolis. That, in December, 1885, said Kuhn, 
being such collector, called upon affiant at affiant’s place of business, and stated 
that he was under obligations to Albert T. Beck, the law partner of Congressman 
Bynum ; that Beck had been very influential in getting him appointed collector 
of customs, and he wanted to return it by helping Beck get elected city attorney 
by the council, which election was to take place in a few days. Said Kuhn further 
told affiant that there was nothing in politics, anyway, except the money a man 
made out of it, and he offered affiant $100 if affiant would vote for said Beck, who 
was a Democrat. That the conversation was then interrupted, and said Kuhn left; 
in the afternoon affiant went to said Kuhn’s office and notified said Kuhn that he 
would have nothing to do with any such proposition. That the next morning said 
Kuhn came to affiant again and raised his offer to $200, and affiant told him for 
no amount of money could he be induced to dispose of his vote. That said Beck 
was voted for as such attorney in said council, and was defeated by a small 
majority.” 

With regard to the last township election an affiant says that Kuhn was 
u electioneering and working, and giving out tickets for the Democratic party; that 
when affiant expostulated with said Kuhn for being an active worker when he was 
holding a Federal office, said Kuhn laughed and replied that affiant was crazy.” 

With regard to one of the last congressional primaries an affiant states : “ That 
said Kuhn was present at said primary, taking an active part therein in the in¬ 
terest of W. D. Bynum, making speeches and motions, collecting ballots and so on. 
That after said primary split said Kuhn remained and helped organize another 
primary, which elected Bynum delegates; that before said primary was held, for 
more than a week, said Kuhn was around in said ward, and several times asked 
this affiant to get up a crowd and come down to said primary to help said Bynum.” 
For several weeks before the primaries Kuhn was around in various wards of In¬ 
dianapolis endeavoring to secure the election of delegates who would vote for Mr. 
Bynum’s renomination. In saloons and other places he repeatedly offered bets that 
certain anti-Bynum delegates could not be elected, or that Mr. Bynum would be 
nominated. He attended the twenty-fourth ward primary with his deputy, Kis¬ 
sel, carrying printed tickets bearing the names of Kuhn, Kissel and Miller. When 
the meeting became riotous because the ballot box had been stuffed and, after a 
motion to adjourn, was about to disperse, Kuhn jumped upon a table and shouted, 
11 Don’t go boys till you have some beer. I’ll set up the beer.” The meeting then 
split, and the Bynum faction declared Kuhn, Kissel and Henry Miller elected. 
The other faction chose delegates including Thomas Madden. 

At the convention May 27, 1886, which followed these primaries Kuhn was 
present as a delegate and Bynum leader, and was one of the most prominent and 
noisy in that turbulent meeting. The convention split and made two nominations, 
Mr. Bynum being one nominee. An interval of wrangling followed, in which Mr, 
Kuhn bore a conspicuous part, meeting with and stimulating the Bynum faction 
by act and exortation, one instance being at Mozart Hall, August 23. It was de¬ 
cided to call the delegates together again, and Kuhn immediately set to work to 
make proselytes for Mr. Bynum, going from delegate to delegate and soliciting 
their votes. When the second convention met September 4, last, Kuhn was again 
present as a delegate, and was the most zealous and prominent supporter of Mr. 


40 


Bynum. He promptly led off in smothering any movement not in Mr. Bynum’s 
interest by derisive utterances known in such assemblages as “cat calls,” and 
by other noise and turbulence. His carried his bullying of delegates to the 
extent that in the interest of Mr. Bynum he was about to engage in a personal en¬ 
counter with another delegate, but was prevented by bystanders. 

The committee on credentials admitted as delegates from his ward Kissel 
and Miller of one faction, and Thomas Madden of the other, ruling Kuhn out. 
He paid no attention to this, but continued his proceedings and when the vote of 
his ward was called delivered it solid for Mr. Bynum. This was corrected, but 
the collector of customs held on his course to the end. 

The question if he was not a Federal office holder was shouted to him across 
the room and he defiantly shouted back that he was. 

kuhn’s deputies. 

Rudolph Mueller was at the congressional primary in the twenty-third ward 
working for Mr. Bynum, having already canvassed the ward in that interest for 
several days. He served on a committee on nominations until the meeting split 
and the Bynum men held a separate primary of which he was secretary. Later he 
was at a primary to choose delegates to the county convention and was one of the 
committee on nominations. He was elected delegate. 

Peter Carson for two weeks before the congressional primaries was driving 
around working to secure delegates for Mr. Bynum. He was in a twenty-fifth 
ward primary making motions and being otherwise active to the same purpose. 
He was a delegate to both meetings of the convention. 

C. Fred Kissel, in addition to his duties as deputy, keeps a saloon. For more 
than two weeks previous to the congressional primaries one affiant says that Kissel 
“ was constantly around working for said Bynum, and to affiant’s question how 
he could afford to spend so much money, said Kissel replied that it was Bynum’s- 
money, or the money of some of Bynum’s friends.” [Mr. Bynum stated after the 
first meeting of the convention that it had so far cost him $1,500, and that he 
could not afford a further contest.] Kissel, along with Collector Kuhn, was at 
the twenty-fourth ward congressional primary as secretary of the meeting. He 
put a handful of the printed Bynum delegate tickets into the ballot-box and was 
detected as he did it. This broke the meeting in two, and he became secretary of 
his faction. He was a delegate at both meetings of the congressional convention.. 

A petition for Kuhn’s removal, embodying the facts here stated concerning 
him and his deputies, has been filed with the President by the officers of the Ex¬ 
ecutive Committee. The President is there referred to the following persons as 
witnesses, by each of whom one or more of the facts may be shown : 

Joseph E. McDonald, ex-Senator, Indianapolis. 

William H. English, President First National Bank, Indianapolis. 

John P. Frenzel, President Merchants National Bank, Treasurer Democratic State 
Committee, Indianapolis. 

Austin H. Brown, member of the Democratic National Committee, Indianapolis. 
Thomas Madden, manufacturer, Indianapolis. 

James Renihan, undertaker, Indianapolis. 

Michael O’Connor, wholesale grocer, Indianapolis. 

A. Kiefer, wholesale druggist, Indianapolis. 

John Carlon, printer, Indianapolis. 

John W. Kern, Supreme Court Reporter, Indianapolis. 

Henry Russe, President German Orphan’s Home, Indianapolis. 

Joseph W. Pennington, foreman Acme Milling Company, Indianapolis. 

Wm. A. Peele, Jr., Chief Indiana Bureau of Statistics, Indianapolis. 


W illiam E. English. ex-Congressman, Indianapolis. 

Aquilla Jones, Sr., Postmaster, Indianapolis. 

0. Byfield, lawyer, Indianapolis. 

Dr. C. N. Metcalf, Secretary Indiana State Board of Health, Indianapolis. 

H. C. Newcomb, produce dealer, Indianapolis. 

John Baker, insurance, Indianapolis. 

Philip Zapf, saloon-keeper, Indianapolis. 

Louis Howland, editor of the Freeman, Indianapolis. 

W. P. Fishback, Master-in-Chancery, Indianapolis. 

T. J. McMahan, Cashier Exchange Bank, Anderson. 

John Beggs, distiller, Shelbyville. 

Chas. G. Offut, lawyer, Greenfield, and also 
T. C. Crawford, of the New York World. 

JAMES T. DOWLING. 

This well-known case is given in detail, as an illustration of the power of a 
spoilsman. The clerk referred to can secure some votes for his Congressman, and 
he is, therefore, still kept in service. 

James T. Dowling, appointed railway mail clerk by Mr. Bynum, has since 
headed the delegation from his ward in the convention to nominate Indianapolis 
city officers. In order to work for the renomination of Mr. Bynum for Congress in 
the south wards of the city, he left his run May 11, and did not return to it until 
June 8. He occupied his time in “ setting up” delegations. On the night of the 
primaries he held the meeting for his precinct separate from the balance of the 
ward. It met early, did up the business sharply, and then went in a body to 
where the rest of the ward had just begun its meeting, with Col. James H. Bice, 
Auditor of State, presiding, and created such a riot that Rice declared the meeting 
adjourned until the next morning. The result was, that while from Dowling’s pre¬ 
cinct the delegation was uncontested, the disunited parts of the swamped meeting 
sent contesting delegations to the convention. At the State Convention, August 11, 
Dowling sat and voted as a delegate, having obtained a proxy. At an adjourned 
county convention, held August 16, Dowling was present as a worker. 

I give other facts illustrative of his conduct as a citizen and public servant: 
To W. F. Vilas, Postmaster General: 

We, citizens of Indianapolis, who voted for Grover Cleveland for the office 
of President, respectfully lay before you the following facts : 

Early last summer James T. Dowling, of this city, was appointed to the 
railway mail service, of which service he has been ever since and is now a mem¬ 
ber. He has been for several years a member of the Common Council of the city 
of Indianapolis. On and about August 1, 1885, he declared publicly, at different 
times and places, and in the presence of different persons, that upon a former oc¬ 
casion he had bribed certain of his fellow councilmen. These facts are shown by 
the following affidavits of William R. Holloway, Scott C. Bone and Marcus L. 
Brown. 

State of Indiana, Marion county, ss: 

William R. Holloway, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that he is a resident of the 
city of Indianapolis, and that he is personally acquainted with one James T. Dowling, now 
•employed in the railway mail service. That on the 1st day of August, 1885, said Dowling de¬ 
clared in affiant’s presence that he had bribed certain members of the Common Council of the 
city of Indianapolis, he being at the time a member of said body, using substantially the fol¬ 
lowing language: “I bought them for the street car company; they were all Republicans; 
and 1 want to say to you that I bought ’em God damned cheap.” And further affiant saith not. 

William R. Holloway. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of October, 1885. 

[Seal.] Louis Howland, Notary Public. 

State of Indiana, Marion county, ss. 

S. C. Bone, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that he is a resident of the city of Indian¬ 
apolis, and that he is personally acquainted with one James T. Dowling, now employed in the 
railway mail service. That on the 1st day of August, 1885, said Dowling declared in affiant’s 


presence that he had bribed certain members of the Common Council of the city of Indiana¬ 
polis, he being at the time a member of said body, using substantially the following language: 
“ I bought them for the street car company ; they were all Republicans ; and I want to say to 
you that I bought ’em God damned cheap.” And further affiant saith not. 

Scott C. Bone. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of October, 1885. 

[Seal.] Louis Howland, Notary Public. 

State of Indiana, Marion county, ss: 

Marcus L. Brown, being duly sworn, says upon his oath that he is a resident of the city 
of Indianapolis, Marion county, Indiana, and that he is personally acquainted with one 
James T. Dowling, now employed in the railway mail service of the government; that on 
Sunday, the 2d day of August, 1885, at the postoffice in said city, he had a conversation with 
said Dowling in regard to what he (Dowling) had said the day before about bribing certain 
members of the Indianapolis Council; that Dowling declared that he wanted an investigation 
by the grand jury, as he could prove that he had bribed certain Republican members of the 
Council to vote against the street car ordinance ; that when it was said to him that he ought 
not to make such charges recklessly and without being sure of his proof, he replied that there 
would be no trouble about proof; that he had it down in black and white ; that he had bought 
several of the Republican councilmen, and that he wanted an investigation by the grand jury 
so that he could show them up. And further affiant saith not. 

Marcus L. Brown. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of October, 1885. Witness my hand and 
notarial seal. A. W. Applegate, Notary Public. 

[Seal.] 

The grand jury of the Criminal Court of Marion county summoned Dowling 
before them for the purpose of investigating the transactions in bribery upon 
which he had declared himself as above. Before that body he declined to answer 
any questions touching the matter, giving as an excuse that he would thereby 
criminate himself. He was then brought by the Prosecuting Attorney before the 
acting judge of the Criminal Court upon an information stating the facts and cir¬ 
cumstances, and insisting upon his plea of self-crimination, he was, by said judge, 
excused from answering, and the grand jury was thereby precluded from further 
investigation of the matter. These facts are shown by the following certified copy 
of the information an,d by the affidavit of the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: 

Filed August 6, 1885. M. G. McLain. Clerk. 

State of Indiana, Marion county, ss: 

Criminal Court of Marion County. 

Comes now William N. Harding, Prosecuting Attorney for said county and state, and in 
forms the court that James T. Dowling was duly sworn as a witness before the grand jury of 
said county, and upon being asked the following questions refused to answer them, for the 
reason that the answer to them might possibly criminate himself, which questions are as fol¬ 
lows : 

First—Do you know of any money being paid to any member of the Indianapolis City 
Council for 1882 and 1883, or do you know of any member of said council receiving any money 
from the Citizens’ Street Railway Company to influence him or them to vote in favor of said 
company on any matter whatever pending before the said council ? 

Second—Have you any knowledge of any money passing to any member of the Indianapo¬ 
lis City Council for the years 1882 and 1883 from the Citizens’ Street Railway Company, or any 
other corporation, in order to influence his vote on any matter whatever before that council? 

Third—Do you know of the Citizens’ Street Railway Company of Indianapolis, or any of 
the agents of that company, paying any money to-Bedford, Ed. Brundage, W. H. Morri¬ 

son, Peter F. Bryce, Allen Caylor, B. W. Cole, John Egger, Henry Mauer, Nelson Yoke, or any 
other member of the Indianapolis City Council for the years 1882*and 1883 in order to influence 
him or them in his or their vote on any matter before*the said Council, or any person above 
named receiving any money from said company? 

To which interrogatories the said Dowling refuses to answer, for the reason that it might 
criminate himself. William N. Harding, 

Prosecuting Attorney. 

State oi Indiana, Marion County, ss: 

I, Moses G. McLain, Clerk of the Criminal Court within and for the county aforesaid, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and complete copy of the interrogatories pro¬ 
pounded to James T. Dowling before the grand jury of said county, and of his reason for re¬ 
fusing to answer them or any one of them, as appears from an original paper signed by the 
Prosecuting Attorney, William N. Harding, filed in my office on August 6, 1885, and now in 
my custody and keeping. 

In testimony whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of said Criminal 
Court, at my office in the city of Indianapolis, the* 18th day of September, 1885. 

Moses G. McLain, 

[Seal.] Clerk of the Criminal Court of Marion County, Ind. 

State of Indiana, Marion County, ss: 

Joseph B. Kealing, being sworn, says that he is and has been for more than six months 
last past Deputy Prosecutor of said county; that he was present when the information of which 
■the foregoing is a copy was laid before the acting Judge, Ross Clark, of the Criminal Corn t of 



43 


said Marion county, in chambers, and that the Court, after considering the same, excused 
James T. Dowling, mentioned therein, from answering the questions therein set forth, on the 
ground of said Dowling’s plea that he might criminate himself, and the investigation by the 
grand jury was therefore brought to a close. Joseph B. Kealing. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 17th day of October, 1885. 

Moses G. McLain, 

[S>eal.] Clerk of the Criminal Court of Marion County. 


The Common Council then proceeded to determine whether Dowling had 
made the declarations ascribed to him of bribing his fellow members, and by a 
vote of 17 to 3 that body, after full investigation, decided that he had made such 
declarations. The Council then proceeded to vote upon the expulsion of Dowling, 
and upon this vote 13 were in favor of his expulsion and 7 were against it; only 
one vote of the necessary two-thirds was lacking. These facts are shown by the 
following certified copy of the proceedings of the Common Council: 

In the matter of the trial of Councilman James T. Dowling : 

At a special meeting of the Common Council of the city of Indianapolis, Ind., 
held in the council chamber on Monday evening, September 28, 1885, the follow¬ 
ing, among other proceedings, were had : The Common Council proceeded with 
the consideration of the charges heretofore preferred against Councilman James 
T. Dowling, which charges are as follows, viz: 

To the Hon. John L. McMaster, Mayor, and the Members of the Common Council of thv City of India¬ 
napolis, except James T. Dowling: 

Gentlemen— The undersigned, members of the Common Council of the city of Indiana 
polis, and composing a majority of the special committee appointed b 5 r said Council to make 
inquiry into certain matters touching the character of James T. Dowling, a member of this 
body, and challenging his fitness to longer sit as a member thereof, after due inquiry and con¬ 
sideration, present and charge: That said Dowling has been guilty of conduct unbecoming 
a gentleman and a member of this body, in this, to wit: 

First—That said Dowling on, to wit, the 1st day of August, 1885, while a member of the 
Common Council of the city of Indianapolis, did publicly charge, state, proclaim and admit, 
in the presence of various citizens in said city, that he, said Dowling, did bribe, corrupt and 
buy certain members of the Common Council of said city for the years 1882 and 1883, by pay¬ 
ing them money and giving them other things of value, to vote for certain measures and 
against certain other measures then pending in and before said council. 

Second—That said Dowling on, to wit: the 1st day of August, 1885, while a member of said 
■council, did publicly charge, state and proclaim, in the presence of numerous citizens in the 
city of Indianapolis, that he, said Dowling, did bribe, corrupt, and buy, certain members of 
the Common Council of the said city for the years 1882 and 1883, by paying them money and 
giving them other things of value to vote for certain measures and against certain other meas¬ 
ures then pending in and before said council, all of which said charges, statements and proc¬ 
lamations were false. 

Third—That said Dowling on, to wit: the 2d day of August, 1885, while a member of said 
council, did publicly reiterate, repeat, charge, state and proclaim in the presence of numerous 
other citizens of said city of Indianapolis, that he, said Dowling, did bribe, corrupt and buy, 
•certain members of the Common Council for the years 1882 and 1833 by paying them money 
and giving them other things of value to vote for certain measures and against certain other 
measures then pending in and before said council, and did then and there further state that 
he had proof thereof in writing that all such statements were true, whereas all such statements 
were untrue and false. 

Wherefore they ask that said Dowling be expelled. W. C. Newcomb, 

Preston C. Trusler, 

Majority of Committee. 

The following persons were sworn as witnesses and examined : W. R. Hollo¬ 
way, M. L. Brown, H. J. Mauer, A. W. Johnson, John Egger, C. T. Bedford, M. 
D. and Allen Caylor. The Chair then announced that the roll would he called 
on the charges in the order as presented, and the councilmen should answer as 
their names are called, ‘‘guilty ” or “ not guilty.” 

The roll was then called and a vote had on each specification of the charges, 
the vote in each case resulting as follows: Those who voted guilty were Council- 
men Benjamin, Edenharter, Gallahue, Haugh, Mack, McClelland, Newcomb, Pear¬ 
son, Rees, Reinecke, Reynolds, Smither, Spahr, Thalman, Trusler, Wharton and 
Wolf—17. Those who voted not guilty were Councilmen Coy, Curry and Doyle—3. 

The several charges having been sustained, the chair then put the question as 
to the expulsion of Councilman Dowling. Those voting for his expulsion are as 
follows: Councilmen Benjamin, Gallahue, Haugh, McClelland, Newcomb, Pear¬ 
son, Rees, Reynolds, Smither, Spahr, Thalman, Trusler and Wharton—13. Those 
voting against his expulsion are as follows: Councilmen Coy, Curry, Doyle, 
Edenharter, Mack, Reinecke and Wolf—7. 


44 


The statute requiring “that any member of the common council may be ex¬ 
pelled or removed from office by a two-thirds vote,” the chair declared the ac¬ 
cused as not expelled, not having received the necessary number of votes. [Total 
number of councilmen 25.1 

Office of City Clerk, 
Indianapolis, Indiana. 

I, George T. Breunig, Clerk of the city of Indianapolis, do hereby certify that the above 
and foregoing statement of the action had by the common council of said city m the trial oi 
charges against James T. Dowling is true, as appears by the record now on file in my office. 

Witness my hand and the seal of the city of Indianapolis this 16th day of October, loba. 

[Seal.] Geo. T. Breunig, City Clerk. 

Applying the principles common among honorable business men, this man can 
not, without violence to those principles, be longer retained in the service of the 
people. No sound business man would retain an employe who declared that he 
had cheated a former employer. The people demand that the same rule shall be 
applied to their business, and that no man who publicly boasts that he has cheated 
them, and has become a criminal by bribing their representatives, shall ever again 
have confided to him a public trust. We therefore ask that James T. Dowling be 
dismissed from the public service. Lucius B. Swift. 

Alexander Metzger. 

Louis Howland. 

Arthur A. McKain. 

Lindley Vinton. 

Indianapolis, Ind., Oct. 28, 1885. 

The Postmaster General refused to consider the above evidence as sufficient, 
but relied on the secret opinion of eminent Democrats who said that they had 
great confidence in Dowling. The danger of such reliance was a little later 
shown: 

We, the undersigned,*would most earnestly request of the proper person for making the 
appointment, to appoint Bernard Conroy to the position of transfer agent for transferring the 
mails at the Union Depot, Indianapolis. We have known Mr. Conroy for a long time as an 
earnest worker in the cause of Democracy—one who is always at the polls early and late. He 
is a hard-working, honest citizen, and as he has never before asked an appointment, we think 
him worthy of recognition now. 

Isaac P. Gray, Governor; Oscar B. Hord; John J. Cooper, Treasurer of State; S. P. Sheerin, 
Clerk of the Supreme Court; W. E. Niblack, Supreme Judge. 

James H. Bice, Auditor of State; Francis T. Hord, Attorney-General; W. R. Myers, Secre¬ 
tary of State. 

Conroy was appointed by Mr. Bynum to the railway mail service. He had 
served two terms in prison, being sent from Indianapolis, where he had been for 
many years a conspicuous object in police circles and in the criminal court, hav¬ 
ing been eleven times in jail on criminal charges. When appointed he was in 
the employ of Mr. Bynum’s chief henchman, Frank Creelman. 

To return to Dowling, he has repeatedly entered upon his duties more or less 
intoxicated, and several times could not go on duty because in that condition. 
Since entering the service he has been promoted. He has considerable natural 
capacity. As a mail clerk he is a masquerader. Sometimes he does not put off mail 
at a place; sometimes he does not take it on; sometimes he gives the mail of one 
town to another, and the latter’s mail to the former. On one trip he scarcely put 
off or took on mail between Indianapolis and Crawfordsville, there being eight 
stations. In a single month recently he was checked for 300 errors. A good clerk 
would have been disgraced by fifty. It can be safely asserted that he made 1,000 
errors in a single week. 

Dowling’s predecessor was John Baker, from whose affidavit I quote : 

“ John Baker, being sworn, says that he is forty-nine years old. That he served 
in the twelfth infantry and twelfth artillery, New York regiments, about three and 
oue-half years, and was twice wounded. That he was appointed railway mail clerk 
in 1874, and served eleven years, being dismissed May 11, 1885, on a charge which 
was true, that he had had charge of the artillery during the reception of Blaine 


45 


•and Logan, at Indianapolis, in the preceding Presidential campaign. That while 
he was in the civil service his party work consisted in twice having charge of ar¬ 
tillery on public occasions, in the day time, and in peddling tickets at various 
times at the polls, and in talking freely. That in his eleven years of service he 
never was a challenger, or member of a committee, or a delegate, or one of an elec¬ 
tion board, or a “setter up” of primaries. That the things he has mentioned as 
having done, except talking, he did exclusively those weeks when he was off his 
run, as entitled to be by the rules of the service. That during his eleven years of 
service he never missed a ‘run’ or failed to answer a call for an extra ‘run,’ except 
for seven weeks in 1882, when disabled by a railway accident, except, also, six 
weeks when he resigned and was re-appointed. That his work has always been 
upon the heaviest lines, and his errors averaged from twenty to thirty five monthly. 
That, in 1876> he ran on the fast mail leaving Cincinnati al two o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing and reaching Indianapolis at five. That his work on that train was such as to 
draw forth to Mr. French, division superintendent, an expression of satisfaction 
from the Enquirer, Commercial and Volksblatt, of Cincinnati, and for this work 
his pay was raised from $1,000 to $1,100 a year. 

“That during the campaign of 1884 James T. Dowling, who has since suc¬ 
ceeded this affiant, notified him that in case of Democratic success he would cut 
off affiant’s head, meaning thereby he that he would secure affiant’s dismissal from 
the service, which he did.” 

O. T. Wells, appointed railway mail clerk upon the recommendation of Mr. 
Bynum, became, after noisy work at the primary, a delegate to a townshsip con¬ 
vention. He was off his run May 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, during which time he 
was busy in the eleventh ward endeavoring to secure a delegation including him¬ 
self for Mr. Bynum. In this he was very conspicuous, driving about in a buggy 
and diligently hustling. On the night of the primary he brought people there in 
hacks to vote for the Bynum candidates; he made all the motions and was the gen¬ 
eral manager for that faction. When defeated, Wells called another meeting, and 
got up a contesting delegation, which was denied admittance to the convention. 

R. P. Corey, appointed railway mail clerk upon the recommendation of Mr. 
Bynum, was off duty for some time, working in Lawrence township, Hancock 
county, to get up adelegation for Bynum. Richard Mustard, also railway mail clerk 
by the same influence, was off duty two days, and was a loud worker for Mr. By¬ 
num on the floor of the congressional convention. Philip H. Wolf, Charles H. 
Rogers and Engene Lewis, Bynum railway mail clerk appointees, were off duty May 
26 and 27, working for his renomination. Lewis spent the entire day at and around 
the polls. Philip Doyle and John Payne, in the same service by the same influ¬ 
ence, were off duty for the same purpose. Wolf and Doyle who, it is well to re¬ 
member, had supported Mail Clerk Dowling when accused in the Indianapolis 
council, were defeated for delegates to Mr. Bynum’s convention, also Timmons and 
Hick, other Bynum railway mail clerks. 

W. P. Canfield, postmaster at Haughville, was a delegate to the Bynum con¬ 
vention. Postmasters Major, at Shelbyville, Avery, at New Augusta, Campbell, 
at Anderson, Parkhust, at Fairland, are other instances of Federal place hold¬ 
ers conspicuously working for Mr. Bynum’s renomination; as are also Willis Mc¬ 
Ginnis, defeated for delegate, Benjamin Wadsworth, and Joseph Lacey, all in the 
revenue service, and Postoffice Inspector Stewart, all Bynum appointees. 

Smith H. Myers, superintendent of mails in the Indianapolis postoffice, took 
part in a Democratic primary August 9. He has, of late, been active in the sup¬ 
port of Mr. Bynnm, attending a meeting of the Bynum faction at Mozart hall ; 
.speaking there, and being zealous in other places. 

Henry Miller; as we have seen, was at the twenty-fourth ward primary with 
Kuhn and Kissel. Being in debt, he went, before the meeting, to his creditor, a 


46 


Republican, and asked him to come to the primary and help “set up” Bynum 
delegates. He held out that if successful he would get an appointment in the 
railway mail service, and could' pay his debt. The Republican complied. By¬ 
num delegates were, in a manner, chosen, and Miller has received his appointment* 
In part of his work, before the primary, he was accompanied by’Congressman By¬ 
num in person. 

J. T. Hill, postal clerk, is member of a negro political club and an active pol¬ 
itician, having in the township election been a ticket peddler.* 

Edward Hawkins, appointed United States Marshal, was one of the Demo¬ 
cratic State Committee, and continued so for several months. At the State con¬ 
vention, August 11, he, with his deputy Taylor, worked diligently for the nomina¬ 
tion of Martin Kreuger. Kreuger and Mr. Hawkins are from the same county. He 
also took part in a political meeting September 27, his deputies, Stein and Taylor,, 
marching with a political club to the same meeting. J. L. Reiley is a clerk in the 
pension office, and was, until recently, secretary of the Democratic State Com¬ 
mittee, as such signing a call to that committee July 24, 1886. Jacob Deitzer, 
deputy collector, is foreman of the Shelbyville Democrat . L. Baring, postmaster 
at Carrollton, has, since his appointment, been a candidate for a county office. He 
left his postoffice for several weeks while he electioneered. Jesse J. Jackson, post¬ 
master at McCordsville, is a member of the Democratic County Committee. Al¬ 
bert Pogue, postmaster at Mount Comfort, is charged with fighting and rioting at 
the township election in 1886. 

OTHER DISTRICTS. 

Norval Blackburn, postmaster at Decatur, is the editor of the Democrat. He 
has removed his newspaper office into the same building, and on the same floor as 
the postoffice. He is also the secretary of the Democratic county committee, and 
was an alternate at the State convention August 11. 

D. J. Eastburn, postmaster at Fowler, is the editor of the Benton Review. He 
continues to be an active politician, and August 11 he attended a convention at 
Goodland. 

Dr. H. C. Davisson, pension examiner, is the regular correspondent from 
Hartford City for the Cincinnati Enquirer ; also, occasionally for the Indianapolis 
Sentinel. He was at the State convention August 11. 

A. B. Crampton, postmaster at Delphi, is the editor and proprietor of the 
Times. He was a member of the Democratic State committee in 1884, and an ac- 

• tive politician otherwise. 

B. F. Louthain, postmaster at Logansport, was chairman of the Democratic 
county committee in 1884, and was also the editor of the Pharos. I am credibly 
informed that he still secretly edits that paper. 

W. H. Norton, postmaster at Elkhart, is the owner of the Sentinel. 

John M. Higgs, postmaster at Connersville, is the editor of the Examiner. He 
also continues to be active in all the other party work of the primary and conven¬ 
tion. 

A. T. Bitters, postmaster at Rochester, was the owner until May, 1886, of the 
Sentinel. 

W. H. Evans, postmaster at Princeton, is the editor of the Democrat , and has 
continued to be active in all other party work. He was chairman of the commit¬ 
tee on rules in the McCullough convention, attended the convention July 15, as a 
member of the congressional district committee. His view is shown in the follow¬ 
ing from his paper : 

“ We can understand why Republicans might engage in such contemptible business; but 
for men claiming to be good Democrats to prefer charges of offensive partisanship against a 
Democrat for attending and taking part in Democratic conventions is hard to understand. It 
is “ littleness whittled down to a fine point.” 


"‘Since this report-wa§ in type Scott Turner, a negro politician, president of a political 
club, has been appointed by Mr. Bynum to the railway mail service. His judgment in re¬ 
fusing a place in the bag department under Postmaster Jones because “ not good enough,” is 
thus vindicated. It would seem too that Mail Carrier Harrison’s efforts with negro voters are 
receiving substantial support. 



47 


Lpon which the Vincennes News (Dem.) remarks: 

“ In his frequent utterances relating to offensive partisanship Mr. Cleveland 
did not limit its application to Republicans. We took it that the President meant 
what he said, and that it was just as reprehensible in a Democrat to violate the 
law and orders of his superiors as in a Republican. It is possible that Mr. Cleve¬ 
land really did not mean that his definition of offensive partisanship should cover 
Democrats who took active part in party work, but we have preferred to believe 
him honest and sincere, and our actions have been on this assumption.” 

Albert A. Sparks is the editor of the Democrat, and upon assuming the duties 
of postmaster the following notice appeared in his newspaper, with a conspicuous 
heading. 

NOTICE. 

Having assumed the duties of postmaster of this city of Mount Vernon, Ind., it will be nec¬ 
essary for me to remain in the postoffice during business hours, therefore, persons desiring to- 
see me on special business connected with the Democrat will please call at the postoffice. 

July 16, 1886, a petition signed by John R. Gardiner, S. H. Pierce, James T. 
Welborn, Silas P. Jones, E. E. Thomas, prominent Democrats, praying for the re¬ 
moval of Mr. Sparks, because as a Federal office holder he had used his position 
to dictate the political action of his party associates and to throttle their freedom 
of action within party lines, was sent to the Postmaster General, and Jacob Har¬ 
lem, Charles M. Spencer, James Kilroy and Isaac Lawrence were cited as wit¬ 
nesses. 

John O. Henderson, revenue collector, retains his large interest in the Kokomo 
Dispatch, and I am informed continues his editorial work. He was at the state 
convention August 11. 

H. E. Wadsworth, postmaster at Laporte, was and is the editor of the Argus. 

A. J. Kitt, postmaster at Goodland, is the owner and publisher of the Herald. 
His predecessor says he got her removed on the false charge that she was a non¬ 
resident. 

W. L. Underwood, postmaster at Cannelton, is the editor and proprietor of 
the Enquirer and Reporter. He takes an active part in all meetings of committees 
and caucuses. He was secretary of the McCullough convention. The chairman 
whom he nominated appointed him on the congressional district committee. He 
attended that convention as a conmmitteeman of Perry county. 

Thomas J. Leamans, postmaster at Wabash, is a stockholder in the Wabash 
Times, and continues other party work. D. T. Krisher, postmaster at North Man¬ 
chester, was, at the time of his appointment, the editor of the Wabash Times, and 
still owns stock iu the paper. He continues to be active otherwise in politics. 

William Swint, postmaster at Booneville, is the editor of the Enquirer. He 
acted as secretary of first convention, and was put on the congressional district 
committee. He was very active in “setting up” Warrick county for Mr. McCul¬ 
lough, congressional nominee. 

B. F. Binegar, postmaster at Albany, presided at a township primary. 

James H. Quillen, postmaster at Lyons, was a delegate at a convention 

in June. Mr. Quillen uses a postoffice letter-head containing his address and offi¬ 
cial title, and also the pictures of Cleveland and Hendricks. Under the pictures 
is the legend, “Our benefactors.” 

J. H. Organ, deputy collector, was a delegate to the state convention August 11. 

J. B. Ruger, postmaster at Lafayette, has presided at a convention, and con¬ 
tinues active party work. 

G. W. Welker, postmaster at Centerville, was a delegate to the state conven¬ 
tion August 11. 

J. H. Macke, deputy revenue collector, was the chairman of the Wayne 
county committee in 1884, and was a delegate to the state convention August 11. 

John Holland, a Richmond letter carrier, was a delegate to the state conven¬ 
tion August 11. 

L. Mehlig, postmaster at Sharpsville, is a member of a Democratic committee. 

William Wilson, deputy postmaster at North Manchester, is chairman of the 
Democratic county committee. 

Oliver C. Cook, postmaster at Green’s Fork, is a member of the Democratic 
county committee. 

L R. Thomas, postmaster at Fountain City, is a member of the Democratic 
county committee. 


48 


George W. Duke, deputy revenue collector, was chairman of the Democratic 
county committee in 1884, and about July 22 called the Democratic county con¬ 
vention to order as chairman. He was vice-president of a political meeting Sep¬ 
tember 27 last. 

A. A. Davisson, postmaster at Seymour, is Chairman of of the Democratic dis¬ 
trict central committee. 

William Fultz, postmaster at Crothersville, is a member of the Democratic 
county committee. 

James C. Carlton, postmaster at Bedford, is a member of the Democratic 
county committee. 

R. M. Roberson, postmaster at Tipton was chairman of the Democratic county 
committee in 1884, and still holds that office. 

Oscar Allen, postmaster at Brownstown, was a candidate before a convention 
for recorder. 

B. S. Gray, son of the Governor, was the editor of the Sun, and was appointed 
postmaster as I am informed against the wishes of the citizens. He is an absentee 
from his office a large part of the time, and is an active politician at all caucuses 
and conventions. 

George B. Cobb, a son of Congressman Cobb, was at the time of his appoint¬ 
ment as clerk of the Land Commissioner, a reporter for the Vincennes Sun. 

J. D. Armstrong, deputy revenue collector, was at the time of appointment 
the editor and proprietor of the Sentinel. 

James Elder was publisher of the Richmond Democrat, and appointed post¬ 
master. Soon after his appointment he died, and his son succeeded him. 

L. A. Kirkwood, postoffice inspector, was when appointed editor and proprie¬ 
tor of the Mnncie Democrat. 


James E. Kackley, postmaster at Vincennes, continues to be an active politi¬ 
cian. He attended the State convention. August 11, as a zealous worker for Reiter, 
a candidate for nomination. The following charges of offensive partisanship have 
been filed against him by some civil-service reform Democrats of his town : 

Vincennes, Ind., August 12, 1886. 

To the Hon. W. F. Vilas, Postmaster General, Washington, D. C.: 

We, the undersigned, citizens of the city of Vincennes, Indiana, hereby most respectfully 
prefer and make the following charges against James E. Kackley, postmaster of said city, 
to wit: 

1. He did absent himself from said office and from said city on the following days : Sat¬ 
urday, August 7, Sunday, August 8, Monday, August 9, Tuesday, August 10, and Wednesday, 
August 11,1886. 

2. He did, on the 7th day of August, 1886, at Petersburg, Pike county, Indiana, where he 
had gone for that purpose, take part in a political convention, composed of delegates from the 
counties of Knox and. Pike, and held for the purpose of nominating a candidate for State 
Senator from said counties. 

3. He did, on Sunday, August 8, 1886, go to Indianapolis, Indiana, where he remained un¬ 
til the following Wednesday or Thursday, and took an active part in the Democratic State Con¬ 
vention and attended and took part in various prelinunary meetings and caucuses incident to 
the convention. He had, prior to that time, procured for himself a written proxy from one 
Thomas Robertson, a duly appointed delegate from Knox county to said convention, and said 
Kackley acted as a delegate therein and was active in working for and against candidates be¬ 
fore said convention. 

We most respectfully submit that said acts and each of them are in violation of the laws 
of the United States, the rules of your department and the orders of the President. We pray 
that said charges be investigated, and, if found to be true, that said Kackley be dismissed 
from said office. ( 

In support of the first charge we ask that the folloWing witnesses be examined: Frank 
Reiter, Joseph Boseman, Theodore S. Love, Helen Holland, Mason J. Niblack and William A. 
Cullop. 

In support of the second charge we ask that the following witnesses be examined : New¬ 
ton F. Malott, R. E. Purcell, George R. Alsop and Henry S. Cauthprn, of Vincennes, Ind., and 
Jefferson Lytton, of Wheatland, Ind. 

In support of the third charge we ask that the following witnesses be examined : Orlan F. 
Baker, Dexter Gardner, Harry V. Somes, Wm. B. Robinson, John Duesterberg, Thomas Rob¬ 
ertson and Thomas R. Cobb, of Vincennes, Indiana. 

We further submit herewith marked copies of various newspapers in this State for the 
purpose of showing that the facts herein stated are well known. 

Respectfully submitted, SAMUEL W. WILLIAMS, 

WARREN W. BAILEY, 
CHRISTIAN HOFFMAN, 
WILLIAM BAKER, 

JOSEPH A. SWARTZEL, 
JOHN A. RANDOLPH, 
CHARLES M. WETZEL. 


49 


Postmasters Crane at Locke, Casteller at Waterford Mills, Shaw at Kingsbury, 
McCormick at Union Mills, Sharpless at Rolling Prairie, Hale at La Fontaine, 
Hatton at Williamsport, Steinspring at Marshfield, Morple at State Line, Gehris 
at Walnut Grove, White at West Lebanon, Dale at Monticello, were active pol¬ 
iticians when appointed, and have continued to be active politicians since. 

Postmasters West at Millersburg, Stoutnour at New Paris, Long at Ben¬ 
ton, Hoover at Middlebury, Milrin at Wakarusa, Smith at Vistula, Nich¬ 
olson at Bristol, Eby at Nappanee, Overman at Marion, O’Donnell at Mitchell, 
Baker at Winamac, and Guager Shanks of Lawrence county, have been active 
workers either in primaries or at conventions, and in most cases at both. 

It is reported to me that in the counties of Clinton, Dubois, Henry, Huntington, 
Jasper, Ohio, Randolph, St. Joseph and Wells, Federal place holders have ab¬ 
stained from party work. 

The following is a list of Federal employes who at the time of their appoint¬ 
ment were connected with a Democratic newspaper as editor, proprietor or stock¬ 
holder, aud with possibly eight exceptions some such relation still continues: 

James Elder, postmaster, Richmond. 

W. H. Norton, postmaster, Elkhart. 

D. Krisher, postmaster, North Manchester. 

E. Copner, postmaster, Waynetown. 

B. S. Gray, postmaster, Portland. 

T. J. Leamans, postmaster, Wabash. 

D. J. Eastburn, postmaster, Fowler. 

W. Swint, postmaster, Booneville. 

A. J. Kitt, postmaster, Good land. 

J. E. McDonald, postmaster, Ligonier. 

J. F. Snyder, postmaster, LaGrange. 

A. B. Crampton, postmaster, Delphi. 

H. J. Fettus, postmaster, Bloomington. 

H. E. Wadsworth, postmaster, Laporte. 

W. A. Barnett, postmaster, Madison. 

W. H. Evans, postmaster, Princeton. 

A. A. Sparks, postmaster, Mount Vernon. 

B. F. Louthain, postmaster, Logansport. 

Stephen Belding, postmaster, Washington. 

A. T. Bitters, postmaster, Rochester. 

E. W. Call is, postmaster, Martinsville. 

J. M. Higgs, postmaster, Connersville. 

G. E. Finney, postmaster, Columbus. 

W. L. Underwood, postmaster, Cannelton. 

Norva.1 Blackburn, postmaster, Decatur. 

J. B. Mitchell, postmaster, New Albany. 

•J. O. Henderson, internal revenue. Kokomo. 

W. D. H. blunter, internal revenue, Lawrenceburgh. 

J. D. Armstrong, internal revenue, Rockport. 

Peter Gfroerer, internal revenue, Terre Haute. 

M. R. Slater, land agent, Franklin. 

L. A. Kirkwood, postoffice inspector, Muncie. 

B. W. Hanna, foreigu minister, Crawfordsville. 

J. S. Williams, third auditor of the treasury, Lafayette. 

PARTISANSHIP OF PLACE HOLDERS SINCE JULY 14, 1886. 

On the above date the President issued his order warning place holders to re¬ 
frain from partisan activity. This order has secured slight obedience. To make 
this clear, in addition to instances already given I select from Morgan county re¬ 
garding a county convention held August 19, 1886. 

Bray, postmaster at Monrovia, was present, and changed his candidacy from 

4 


% 


50 


county treasurer to commissioner ; was nominated and is working for his own elec¬ 
tion. 

Frey, postmaster at Mahalasville, was present, and for a time was candidate 
for county clerk. 

Hooker, postmaster at Mooresville, was present, and successfully worked for 
Richardson for clerk. 

Gamble, postmaster at Brooklyn, was present and successfully worked for his 
township man for auditor. 

Dr. R. H. Tarlton, pension surgeon, was present, taking his usual active part. 

Dr. S. A. Tilford, pension surgeon, was present and was a prominent leader in 
a factional fight in the convention. He was charged with being “ the leader of a 
ring at Martinsville, who was trying to control everything.” 

E. W. Callis, editor and postmaster at Martinsville, was not at the convention 
in person, but sent representatives, and has lately been doing his party work by 
deputy. He devotes, however, little time to his postoffice, but attends to his news¬ 
paper. 

To these should be added the following placeholders, previously mentioned 
in this report: Norval Blackburn, Lewis Douhost, D. J. Eastburn, H. C. Davis¬ 
son, W. Zacherias, James E. Kackley, J. H. Organ, J. W. Welker, J. H. Macke, 
John Holland, Joseph Sheppard, Smith H. Myers, John Van Stan, J. T. Dowling, A. 
M. Kuhn, C. F. Kissel, Rudolph Mueller, Peter Carson, Edward Hawkins and his 
deputies, Stein aud Taylor, J. O. Henderson, Dennis Colbert, G. W. Duke, John 
W. Leach, John W. Dodd, Alfred Harrison, J. T. Hill, Rev. O. H. P. Abbett. 

THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION. 

Taking the State as a whole, in a year and a half, with unimportant excep¬ 
tions, the Federal employes have been displaced by a new set. In May last Judge 
Lewis Jordan, a prominent and well-informed Democrat, said, in the Indianapolis 
Sentinel: “ Why should there be any dissatisfaction in Indiana when all the Fed¬ 
eral officers in the State, save a few postmasters, have been changed ? * * * 

In some of the congressional districts there is not a Republican postmaster left.” 
At the State convention, August 11, last, R. W. Miers was nominated for Secretary 
of State. In his speech of acceptance he said: “ Notwithstanding it (the Adminis¬ 
tration) has been hampered by the civil-service law, the rascals are nearly all out.” 
And ex-Senator McDonald, in a recent interview, said : “Our State is thoroughly 
satisfied as far as Federal patronage is concerned.” 

Employes, whose aggregate wages amounted to a very large sum, have been 
deprived of their places and in large numbers are now seeking other employment. 
Untrained men have been hired by the government to do their work. For party 
objects the new men were taken from the party workers ; they were, when appointed, 
offensive partisans of the ultra type. Congressmen have chosen from the worser 
elements of their party. The general wrangle with which the changes have been 
made is an unhappy public sight. The public business has been hampered. It 
brings the whole case vividly to mind to ask, if a long-suffering people is to be 
called upon to repeat this experience, now lasting a year and a half, in the first 
part of another Presidential term should another party come into power at the end 
of four years? Congressmen,to an extent never exceeded, have attempted to keep 
their places by giving places to others. The opposition to a number of congress¬ 
men was in each case nearly overbalancing, and the work of Federal placeholders 
was the single weight that turned the scale. Having had their way, these political 
sharpers seek to hide the ignominy thus heaped upon a reform Administration by 
breaking out into loud praises of the President. Mr. Bynum, patronizingly to 
his convention, says: “No more devoted patriot, sincere and honest official than 
Grover Cleveland ever filled, in my judgment, the executive chair.” Voorhees, 


51 


Holman, Matson and Lowry, all fresh from throttling the will of the people, are 
“surprised ” to find how strong the President is. 

When I look at the appointees I can but conclude that charges of offensive 
partisanship have been largely, so far as congressmen and those making them are 
concerned, a pretence only; everything has bent to the exigencies of congressmen. 

For instance, Postal Clerk Steinhauer, at Indianapolis, was dismissed for having 
while in the service gone to Cincinnati and acted as deputy marshal at the State 
election in 1884. He was a hard working, efficient clerk. He went to Ohio by 
order of his superiors. His successor, Conroy, was found too unsavory to keep. 

Baffled in rewarding Conroy, Mr. Bynum could not at once allot this spoil, and 
Steinhauer was put back and borne with over six months until it suited the pur¬ 
pose of Mr. Bynum to turn him out again; this he did, and put in Miller, to pay 
for what Miller did for Mr. Bynum’s renomination, and of which I have already 
spoken. 

The treatment has not been even handed. Very few men could get any in¬ 
formation whatever as to their removal, and a hearing was universally refused. 

Yet in the Dowling case the matter was referred to Mr. Bynum, and Dowling was 
given the fullest opportunity to answer, the Postmaster General writing: 

“It is fair to any man who has been appointed and since his appointment has 
continued in the service without complaint as to the manner of its performance 
from the officials over him that he should have notice of such an accusation as 
you make, because inquiry might put a different complexion upon the case as you • 

understand it.” 

And the names of those who secretly answered for him were refused to those 
who publicly made the charges. 

Again, Isabella De La Hunt, widow of a Democrat who died of wounds re¬ 
ceived in the service, held the postoffice at Cannelton. She was removed for al¬ 
leged partisanship, first located in the campaign just closed. This had no founda¬ 
tion, and it was then laid upon editorials printed more than eight years before in 
a paper owned but not edited by her, and soon after sold. Her successor is the 
editor of a paper, was delegate and secretary in a recent congressional convention, 
cast the vote of his township for one man, although the delegates had been in¬ 
structed to vote for another, and was made one of the congressional committee. 

Again, the postmaster at Martinsville was dismissed because he owned and 
edited a paper. His successor, E. W. Callis, editor of the Martinsville Weekly Gazette , 
supported his application by the following editorial from his paper of February 
14, 1885: 

“city and county.” 

“The editor of this paper is a candidate for postmaster of the city of Martins¬ 
ville, and he thinks that he ought to be successful. In fact he has been a stand¬ 
ing candidate for a number of long years contingent upon the success of the Dem¬ 
ocratic party in a national election. Since that point has been reached, he has a 
right to expect that party pledges and promises should be redeemed. He expects 
the support of all Democrats who are connected with this party programme. He 
expects the support of all Democrats who believe in Mr. Cleveland,s motto, “ tell 
the truth,” and who believe that the right way to strengthen their organization is 
to strengthen their county paper. A newspaper is successful according to the 
means furnished for its support. The means now provided while they are free of 
cost to the party are of vast importance to the editor of this paper, and should be 
freely bestowed without contest or question.” 

This editorial was sent with the successful application for appointment; and 
the Columbus, Decatur ? and Bloomington postoffices afford analogous instances. 


52 


Benjamin Bagby, a negro, was a postal clerk living at Indianapolis. James 
T. Hill, also a negro, wanted his place, and succeeded in getting evidence of Bag- 
by’s offensive partisanship. This he forwarded to the Postmaster General, and 
along with it an application for himself supported by a showing of his own zeal¬ 
ous work in the last Presidential campaign. This was successful, and Hill has since 
held the place. 

After fifty-five years of the spoils system during which subordinates have felt 
that their continued employment would be jeopardized by refusal to do party work, 
it was manifestly unfair to spring upon minor place holders such as clerks and la¬ 
borers an ex post facto rule, punishing them for a course pursued under a former 
Administration, and usually under orders of superiors ; and the unfairness becomes 
more patent when it is remembered that more active party workers have taken 
their places. 

Experienced subordinates have been dismissed by wholesale, not for the benefit 
of the public service, but it is claimed to punish them for having in former years 
been challengers, or committeemen, or delegates, or walkers in processions; and their 
places have been given to challengers, or committeemen, or delegates, or walkers in 
processions who continue openly to be such. Furthermore, under the system of 
secret charges hiding both charge and accuser, it is believed that a large number 
have been displaced for false or trivial reasons. The course pursued has not been 
in accordance with the well doing of the public business or with the dignity and 
honor of a great government professing to institute a great reform. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

Regarding the Pendleton act, the President said : “ My conception * * * 

of public duty requires that this * * * should be in good faith and without 
evasion enforced, and * * * I have in effect promised the people that this should 

be done.” Yet, in the Indianapolis postoffice, the only office in Indiana within 
the Pendleton act, that law has been completely and faithlessly evaded arid nul¬ 
lified. 

With regard to removals, the President said that “They should not be made 
during the terms for which they (the incumbents) are appointed solely on partisan 
grounds for the purpose of puttiug in their places those who are in political ac¬ 
cord with the appointing power.” Yet the displacement of former employes by 
those in political accord with the appointing power has, in this State, using the 
words of Mr. Hendricks, in 1876, been a “ remorseless proscription for political 
opinions.” 

Speaking of former partisan officials, the President said: Such officials, as 
well as their successors, should be taught that efficiency, fitness and devotion to pub¬ 
lic duty are the conditions of their continuance in public place” Yet their successors 
have been platoons and companies of “ unscrupulous manipulators of local party 
management.” 

The President said of many former incumbents that “ they had forfeited all just 
claims to retention * * * because instead of being decent public servants they 
have proved themselves offensive partisans and unscrupulous manipulators of local 
party management.” Yet of the hundreds of their successors who in Indiana have 
impudently and brazenly manipulated the local party machine, not one has for¬ 
feited his place. 

The President said: “ Selections for office not embraced within the civil 

service rules will be based upon sufficient inquiry as to fitness” Yet the places in In¬ 
diana have been given out as the booty of congressmen in disregard of fitness. 


53 


The President said October 30, 1884 : “ There should be no mistake about 
this contest. It is an attempt to break down the barriers of the people of the 
United States and those that rule them. The people are hound down by a class of office 
holders. * * * * ” Yet this year, in six congressional districts of this 

State, the Federal office holders have, without hindrance or rebuke, thwarted the 
will of the people. 

It is not a pleasant task for those civil service reformers who had a steadfast 
faith that every promise would be kept, to examine the work done and report the 
truth ; but their sincerity is on trial. Besides, to stand silent now would impose 
silence when some other party succeeds to the national Administration. The truth 
must be stated plainly. In Indiana, Civil Service Reform has been disgraced and 
made coutemptible. 

LUCIUS B. SWIFT. 

Indianapolis , September 28, LSS6. 
















' 5 ' ' ' ' ' 












i 

• ' •. « * . . 

! • ■ 

l - 

" '■! ' 

' ' ; ' . .... 

V Hi ■ 

■ 



, 











CONTENTS. 


Postoffices—First Class—Indianapolis 

Second Class. 

Third Class. 

Fourth Class. 

Other Federal Offices. 

Railway Mail Service. 

Removals. 

Appointments. 

Party Work—Indianapolis Postoffice. 

Howard’s District. 

Lamb’s District. 

Lowry’s District. 

Matson’s District. 

Holman’s District. 

Bynum’s District. 

Other Districts. 

Party Work since July 14, 1886. 

Petitions to the Administration. 

Tables and Summaries. 


Page. 

5 

. 29 

. 30 

. 31 

.32, 33 

. 33 

...5-20, 29-32, 44, 50, 51 

5-9, 16, 21-26, 29-32, 51 

. 6, 7, 21-26 

. 35 

. 35 

. 36 


37 

38 
38 


.....30, 46 

.49, 50 

16, 38, 41, 47,48 


8, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 49, 50 



































Association, 


Indiana Civil Service Reform 


V\ 


DOCUMENT No. 3. 


Annual Address of the President, Wm. Dudley Foulke, at the Meeting 

held at Indianapolis, October 8th, 1886. 


The year which has passed over our heads since this Association was born 
shows a great awakening of interest in Civil Service Reform, both for it and 
against it. Its enemies have become its enemies in earnest, and its friends have 
been filled with a far greater measure of enthusiasm and devotion than at any 
previous time. 

Indiana has been a long way behind some of her sister states in reform sen¬ 
timent. The subject was scarcely spoken of here for years after it had gained 
a permanent foothold in the national government and in the jurisprudence of 
Massachusetts and New York. It is true that a declaration in favor of civil serv¬ 
ice reform was generally found in the platforms of both political parties, and 
now it is found in only one. But these declarations were often inserted in a per¬ 
functory way, not intended to mean much, and were sometimes accompanied by 
adjective attachments —real Civil Service Reform, honest Civil Service Reform— 
meaning something different from the original article; and intended, like Delphic 
hexameters, to adapt themselves to the wishes of the listener and read either way. 
But now the absence of a declaration, as well as its presence, has a distinct and 
definite meaning: the people are beginning to realize that the insertion of any 
plank in favor of civil service reform is something to be avoided by the office 
seeker and spoilsman, and something to be insisted upon by disinterested and pat¬ 
riotic men. 

When a new movement is founded, as we believe ours is, upon an immutable 
basis of truth and sound reason, the first condition of its ultimate success is the 
arousing of public interest. Agitation and investigation, if they spread far enough 
and go deep enough, are sure to bring about its accomplishment. To excite antag¬ 
onism, however violent, is no sign of failure ; with a just cause it is an almost cer¬ 
tain augury of success. 

The principles which underlie our reform are not hard to understand ; and 
the demonstration of their truth can be made with almost mathematical precision. 

We start with the proposition that inasmuch as the whole people pay taxes 
for the support of the Government, and all are equally interested in its well-being, 
that it ought to be administered for the benefit of the whole people, and not for 




























2 


the benefit of the members of one political party alone. Will anybody deny that? 
Will anybody say that, as a matter of common justice, it is right to tax Democrats 
for services performed for the Republican party; or, to tax Republicans for serv¬ 
ices rendered to the Democratic party? Will anybody say that the whole body of 
the people have not a right to the most efficient service that can be obtained ? 
Will anybody deny that that man ought to have the office who is best fitted to per¬ 
form its duties? 

Still another principle that Civil Service Reformers insist upon is this: that 
in appointments to office, as in the management of all public affairs, it is far bet¬ 
ter to rely upon a system of fixed laws and rules wherever they can be made ap¬ 
plicable, than upon the mere discretion of those in authority. Do we believe that 
government by law is not better than an arbitrary despotism? Who doubts it? 
But why is it so? Laws often work injustice. It is hard to adapt them to each 
circumstance that arises. Yet, does any one outside the Russian Empire propose 
to go back to autocracy, instead ? Has not the experience of the world shown us 
that men are so selfish that it is not safe to trust the interests of the individual or 
public to unrestrained discretion? In most matters our century has outgrown the 
old-fashioned ideas of personal government, and has established certain rules to 
regulate the affairs of mankind and the conduct of the government itself. We 
have applied measurably to society the plan which we have discovered in the uni¬ 
verse, where the relations of one object to another are controlled by the operation 
of immutable laws; but there are a few functions of government where the person¬ 
al plan still prevails. Men are still appointed to subordinate offices by the discre¬ 
tionary authority of the appointing power. Men are selected as keepers in oui 
prisons and as attendants in our hospitals, not because they have shown their fit¬ 
ness for these places, but because certain trustees or other officials saw fit to put 
them there. 

Now, if these boards of trustees were always wise and always beneficent, this 
plan would be an excellent one, just in the same sense that an absolute monarchy 
would be an excellent form of government if you were always sure of finding a 
just, wise and perfect sovereign. But the blood-marks of tyranny Avhich have de¬ 
faced so many pages of the world’s history have shown that rulers are so unwise 
and selfish, so corrupted by the very power entrusted to them, that, in the long 
run, it is better to be governed by laws, to which all shall be subject, than by the 
mere will of any man. Our experience with boards of trustees, and even with 
Presidents and Postmasters-general, is the same; and we say, that in the main, it 
is better to establish certain fixed rules to control appointments than to leave this 
power any longer to their purely arbitrary will. Does not every analogy drawn 
from the functions of civil government and the history of civil liberty support us? 

Men say of this reform that it is an aristocratic and monarchical institution. 
No, my friends, it is not that. It is the old system which is the relic of monarchy, 
still surviving, amidst institutions otherwise free. It is the system of political 
spoils which is the alien substance, the blighting excresence that grows from the 
branches of our tree of liberty. 

Well, if rules are safer than the selfish caprices of men, the rest of the 
problem is easy. Those rules should be adopted which will best ascertain who is 
the fittest man for the place among those who are willing to take it. Now, there 
are two ways of finding out a man’s fitness; one is by examining him in reference 
to the duties which he is to perform, another is by actually trying him. Some 
things can be tested by examination alone and some can not; so we ought to do 
both—examine and try. No man should be a reading-clerk who does not know 


3 


liow to read, nor a book-keeper who does not know how to write. No man ought 
to be a policeman who is too weak to seize a culprit, or too slow to catch him, or 
who does not know when he can arrest without a warrant and when he requires 
one. Yet I have heard reading-clerks who could not read, and seen book-keepers 
who could not calculate, and I have heard of policeman who were physically 
and mentally unable to perform their duties. A half-hour’s examination would 
show these disqualifications. An examination then ought to be had. 

But a government ought to have not only a good man but the very best man 
that can be found. Will anybody dispute this? Is it not simple justice that the 
man who knows best how to perform the duties of an office should have a chance 
of showing his qualifications? And how can you tell who is the best man until 
you give all a chance to try? If you refuse to appoint Republicans under a Dem¬ 
ocratic administration, or Democrats under a Republican administration, you 
may leave out not only the best man but the only competent man who has applied. 
The opportunity for appointment should be equally open to all. This is nothing 
but simple Democratic equality. There is no aristocratic ingredient in this prin¬ 
ciple ; it is the simple justice which is demanded by our free institutions. Let the 
appointment be given to the worthiest. 

But, you say, men do not do this in private life; clerks are not appointed by 
competitive examinations. But, in private business, men have a motive sufficiently 
strong to guarantee that the person appointed will be fit; it is to their interest to 
do this. In public life on the other hand, the appointing officer is not acting for 
himself; he is the trustee of the people under our party system. He owes his place, 
not so much to the whole community, as to his party ; hence his party interest, and 
sometimes his personal interest, is opposed to his duty to the whole community, 
and his discretion should be limited by law. 

Here you have in a nutshell the whole doctrine of civil service reform. The 
machinery by which these results are accomplished consist of Boards of Civil Serv¬ 
ice Commissioners and local examining boards, who prepare tests of the qualifi¬ 
cations of applicants and fix beforehand the merit to be awarded to proficiency on 
each particular subject, upon which an examination is had. The examinations 
refer to the duties to be performed. Men used to talk of the folly of examining 
applicants for clerkships in Latin and Greek, as if that were ever done; in point 
of fact an examination of the papers prepared by the various commissioners show 
that the topics of examination are confined strictly to subjects which the applicant 
would be required to know in the discharge of the duties of the office for which he 
applies. But men may knowhow to perform their duties and still fail to do it; 
an examination is not always sufficient and a period of probation should be im¬ 
posed. When this is done, and proper limitations as to character, age, and physi¬ 
cal condition are imposed, we have, I think, as good a system as can be devised. 

Men used to laugh at this reform. “ Examine policemen,” said they, 
“and attendants in hospitals; what nonsense!” But when this was done and 
found to work most successfully, even in a large city like New York, where 
the service was infinitely improved under the new system, the joke entirely 
lost its point. For civil service reform is justified not only by abstract reason but 
by experience. It has been tried in many places and under various conditions ; 
and, wherever there has been a willingness to enforce its provisions in good faith, it 
has met with uniform success. Efforts have sometimes been made to discredit it 
bv evading the provisions of the act, in just the same way as other civil laws, which 
determine your right and mine to life, liberty and property, are sometimes evaded 
by the unscrupulous. But the result I think is everywhere better than if the law 


4 


did not exist; and, wherever civil service reform, like any other just and benefi¬ 
cent statute is reasonably supported by an enlightened public opinion, its results 
are sure to be good. 

It has been tried under the most varied conditions; in England, in India, in 
Sweden, iu France, in Canada, in Australia, in the National Government, in Mas¬ 
sachusetts, in New York, and in the cities of the Empire State ; and everywhere 
its results have, on the whole, been satisfactory. 

It is for the propagation of this gospel and for the enforcement of the princi¬ 
ple that public office is a trust which must not be diverted to personal or party 
ends, that the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association was organized. 

The condition of affairs in this State at the time of its organization was about 
this: A few lectures had been delivered on behalf of the reform by President 
Jordan of the State University, Mr. Lucius B. Swift, and others. It had been 
sometimes mentioned in the party platforms, but there was very little knowledge 
concerning it abroad in the State. At the last session of the Legislature a bill 
was introduced (Senate Bill No. 1) based upon the provisions of the New York 
law, providing for a Civil Service Reform Commission, which should control ap- 
pointmentments to subordinate administrative offices in all the State institutions ; 
and giving power to the various cities of the State to adopt civil service regula¬ 
tions for admission to the public service in such cities. The bill was referred to 
the Judiciary Committee, and a majority of the committee reported iu favor of 
its passage. On the second reading of the bill an argument elucidating the prin¬ 
ciples of civil service reform was delivered in the Senate, and the bill passed its 
second reading, but was defeated upon the third, a number of senators who previ¬ 
ously voted for it either voting against it or remaining absent. 

An inquiry into the conduct of the Indianapolis post-office, under the admin¬ 
istration of Mr. Jones, had been carried on by some gentlemen of this city who 
were interested in civil service reform ; but the Civil Service Commission found 
that there had not been a sufficient violation of the law to justify the removal of 
that gentleman, although a number of irregularities and improprieties were ad¬ 
mitted. The time seemed ripe for an organized effort on behalf of civil service 
reform in this State. A call was issued, signed by many persons in different 
parts of the State, and the Association had its first meeting a year ago in this 
place. A constitution was adopted by which the business management of the As¬ 
sociation was left in the tiands of the executive committee of six, to be appointed 
by the President. As the investigation of the Federal civil service of the State 
was one of the objects contemplated, it was thought best that the members of this 
executive committee should consist, one-half of gentlemen who had supported the 
present administration at the last election; and one-half of gentlemen who had op¬ 
posed it; the President himself had no vote iu the committee. Messrs. Lucius B. 
Swift, Oliver T. Morton, Louis Howland, John W. Murphy, James B. Black, and 
Noble C. Butler were appointed on that committee. The committee, shortly after 
its appointment, issued an address to the people of Indiana and appointed a num¬ 
ber of Vice-Presidents and local secretaries in different sections of the State. 

The work of the Association has been two-fold: First. The propagation of 
the doctrines of civil service reform. Second. The examination and investiga¬ 
tion into existing laws and into existing abuses in the civil service which required 
amendment by legislation. Lectures have been delivered in various parts of the 
State, at the State University at Bloomington, at the Normal School at Terre 
Haute, and at other places. Two other associations have been formed, one at 
Greencastle and one at Bloomington. Both these associations are represented at 


5 


this meeting. The executive committee have maintained a correspondence with 
the National League, and delegates were present on behalf of this Association at 
the last meeting of the League in Newport. 

But the greater part of the labors of the Association during the past year has 
been devoted to the examination of existing abuses which call for a more rigid 
enforcement of the present National civil service law; and, as we think, impera¬ 
tively demand the incorporation of similar provisions into the legislation of this 
State. The two matters to which the executive committee has mainly directed its 
attention, has been the investigation of the condition of the Insane Hospital as 
administered under the present partisan law, and an inquiry into the condition 
of the Federal civil service of this State, both that embraced in the provisions of 
the Pendleton Bill and the remaining appointments. The first was conducted by 
a sub-committee of three persons, whose report was submitted to the executive 
■committee, adopted and published by authority of the Executive Committee. 

Dr. Harrison, President of the Board of Trustees of the Insane Hospital, pub¬ 
lished in the Indianapolis Sentinel an answer to the report of the committee, but 
the most important allegations remained unrefuted. It was distinctly admitted 
that the management of the Insane Hospital was a partisan management, and if 
there was a Republican voter in its employ the trustees did not know it; that they 
wanted no one but Democrats, and that as long as their management continued it 
would be strictly partisan. It was not denied that places were given for political 
reasons; that legislative influence was courted by the appointment of relatives and 
friends of Democratic members of the General Assembly, that letters were written by 
directors of the Board to members of the Legislature asking them to send someone 
to the Asylum for appointment; that this traffic in place was reduced to a system ; 
that many of the appointees were unfit for the positions for which they were selected; 
that for the responsible position of physician men were chosen without qualifica¬ 
tion or previous experience ; that many employes were political workers; that sub¬ 
scriptions were circulated among them and funds raised for campaign purposes, 
among others to prosecute the Democratic campaign in Boone county, where Dr. 
Harrison resides. It was not denied that the politics of Wayne township were 
largely controlled by the employes of the Hospital in selecting delegates to Dem¬ 
ocratic conventions, and that active agitation was maintained in the Hospital in 
respect to the Bynum-Bailey controversy; that at the time of a recent Democratic 
-congressional convention the Hospital was almost deserted ; that employes have 
been vigorously canvassing while in the service of the Hospital; that additional 
places were made for political workers ; that one of the trustees has been absent for 
a year, drawing pay all the time ; that the trustees failed to adopt a code of by¬ 
laws for nearly three years; that frequent changes were made by the Board ; that 
there was great discord among members of the Board ; that the contract system was 
defective, contracts sometimes going to the highest bidder ; that a claim of John E. 
;Sullivan for butter was rejected because a former Board found it to be oleomar¬ 
garine ; that Sullivan worked for the Brown bill, to which the present Board owes 
its appointment, and his claim was allowed by the present Board ; that Sullivan 
was awarded the contract for butter when others bid lower than he did ; that he has 
■repeatedly furnished butteriue under a contract for creamery butter; that according 
to the Superintendent’s report for May, 1S85, he was awarded the contract, although 
Howard Duffy, of Columbus, had bid nearly one-half less than the bid offered ; that 
inferior goods were furnished, which did not conform to the specifications, but were 
accepted by Hall, the steward, a man against whom R. H. Tarlton, one of the trus¬ 
tees, files a protest that as a book-keeper he did not keep the books, but others kept 


6 


them for him ; as store-keeper he did not receive and store the goods, and can not 
properly judge of them. It appeared that Trustee Gapen had received a discount 
of $64.77, 2J per cent, returned for cash payment, from Mellen & Co., and this 
discount is still unaccounted for ; that 2,688 pounds of bread were wasted in a single 
month; that the ironing for 750 patients was accomplished in two days, and it re¬ 
quires three and a half days to iron the clothing of 150 employes; that the engine 
is run at a heavy cost and the machiuery often is not used ; that reports of subsist¬ 
ence show meat tainted, butter bad, coffee not good, cabbage not well cooked, bread 
sour, etc.; that cruelty to patients is of frequent occurrence; that they are struck* 
beaten and teased, and owing to the large number of complaints of cruelty, Dr* 
Fletcher introduced the system of having upon each ward a man and wife; that 
droves of hogs afflicted with cholera were slaughtered while they were dying of 
that disease, and the meat put upon the tables. Many of these facts are proved 
from the records of the Board and reports of the Superintendent. It is submit¬ 
ted that these matters sufficiently show the wretched character of partisan man¬ 
agement and call for speedy and drastic measures of reformation. 

The second examination was conducted by Mr. Lucius B. Swift, the chairman 
of the executive committee, in person. His report, which has just been 
adopted by, the executive committee, and afterwards by the Association, i 
a most elaborate and exhaustive review of the condition of the whole civil service 
of the State. It contained the results of several months’ labor. We find in it a 
complete portraiture of the method of the enforcement of the Pendleton law in the 
one office in Indiana which is subject to its rules, and of the enforcement of the civil 
service reform principles of the President asstated by him in his letter to Mr. Curtis 
Mr. Cleveland promised that there should be no relaxation upon his part of an 
earnest effort to enforce the law, and that the government positions which were 
not within the letter of the statute, and were disconnected with the policy of the 
Administration, should be free from removals upon merely partisan grounds. He 
stated that those who used their places for party purposes, and instead of being 
decent public servants were offensive partisans and unscrupulous manipulators of 
local party management, must be taught, as well as their successors, that efficiency, 
fitness and devotion to public duty were the conditions of their continuance in office. 
A definition of what constitutes offensive partisanship appeared in the confidential 
circular of Postmaster General Vilas, dated April 29, 1885. There were eight, 
specifications : First, having been an active editor and proprietor of a Republican 
newspaper printing offensive articles; second, having been a stump speaker; 
third, having been a member of a political meeting ; fourth, having been an officer 
of a campaign club ; fifth, having been an organizer of political meetings ; sixth, 
having made his office headquarters for political work ; seventh, having put his 
clerks into the performance of political duties; eighth, possibly other acts of 
equal force. 

Mr. Vilas wrote to Mr. Swift in September, 1885: “ I hope I shall ever be as 
willing to remove an unfit person when appointed by me as if he had been found 
in the service as I took it.” In the light of these declarations of the principles 
and policy of the Administration, Mr. Swift considers: first, the enforcement 
of the Pendleton Act, in the one office to which it applies, namely, the Indianapolis 
post-office; and secondly, the character of the appointments and removals in 
this State, which are not governed by the Pendleton Act, but are subject to the 
principles announced in the letters of Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Vilas. 

Aquilla Jones took charge of the postoffice April 19, 1885. He at once re¬ 
moved the assistant postmaster, cashier, stamp clerk, messenger, superintend- 


7 


ents of the registry department and carriers, and filled their places with Demo¬ 
crats. In the sack repair department every man and woman, within a few weeks, 
was dismissed and succeeded by a Democrat. These included four women upon 
whom others were dependent for support. The janitors of the building, watch¬ 
man, engineer and elevator boy followed. 

Mr. Jones said : “ I made such removals for no other reasons than that the 

persons were Republicans.” The men appointed by him to the unclassified service 
are active political workers; their names and acts of partisanship are distinctly 
specified in the report. In the classified service men were wantonly removed for 
the purpose of making room for Democrats. None but Democrats were appointed. 
Riggs, who had passed the examination, asks if there is any prospect of appoint¬ 
ment, and Jones answers, “ Who did you vote for at the last election ? ” Green asks 
if any Republicans would be appointed, and Jones answers “ No.” John W. Dodd, 
assistant postmaster, is appointed the head of the local examining board. To an 
Indianapolis audience such an appointment does not need to be characterized. A 
new examination is held almost immediately, although there are many eligibles 
remaining from the examination which had been made shortly before Mr. Jones 
took the office. Mr. Jones says that no Republicans passed this new examination. 
There seemed to be a sudden concentration of the capacity to answer questions in 
the brains of the adherents of one party alone. 

Removals now began in good earnest. Wood was turned off, and Jones told 
him that he had no objection to him personally, but that he had promised his 
place to another. Wilmington went, and Jones said to him that he was dismissed 
because he wanted the place for some one else. 

Mr. Jones tells Howland and Swift that he would not appoint Republicans 
even if they passed, no matter how high they stood ; that he would not appoint 
them because they were Republicans. 

Hoover had to go because, as Jones said, he was well fixed, had a farm and 
coukl take care of himself; he was going to make places for others ; that it made 
no difference whether this was a violation of the civil service law ; that he had 
made up his mind to make these changes. Mr. Jones tells Tousey that he had no 
complaint to make ; that all he wanted was the place. “ I am in rather an awk¬ 
ward place, pushed on by one party and held back by another.” 

Jones tells Lockwood : “ You are all going anyway ; I have kept all of you 
longer than I have wanted to ; summer has come now and you can make a living, 
and I want you all to get out of here.” 

At another time Dodd said: “ There are no charges at all; you have always* 
done your work well; we want your place for a Democrat. The party pressure 
outside is causing removals; we are actually removing some men I think more of 
than the men that take their places; the new men are not as good as some of the 
men we are discharging.” 

To Schmedel, Jones says : “ I have no complaint to make, only I have a Dem¬ 
ocrat whom I wish to put in your place.” 

Mr. Dodd says: “If we begin to make promises to keep carriers we shall 
have no places for our political friends.” Dodd gives Mr. Hand the reason for his 
dismissal: “ I don’t know anything more than we want your place for a Demo¬ 
crat; we have got to begin somewhere so we begin with you.” To McLeland he 
says : “ It is better for the boys to resign than to have us trump up charges against, 
them.” And, “It almost breaks Mr. Jones’ heart to have to trump up charges 
against the boys.” 

Sometimes, instead of dismissing carriers, resignations were forced, as in the- 


/ 


8 


tjase of Benjamin Crane, to whom Dodd said: “We have nothing against you 
Ben, if you have nothing against us.” So, Jacob H. Mattern, to whom Dodd said 
there was no complaint. To Blume he said : “ We are well satisfied with your 
work, but you know how it is in politics; the postmaster is pushed harder by the 
Democrats than people generally know, and he has to redeem himself with his 
party. He has to make room for one of them and yours is the only place we can 
take at the present time.” To Fitch, Mr. Jones says: “No, there are no charges ; 
yop know how it is; I would like your resignation by the 1st of July.” To Wil¬ 
liams he simply says: “You have been here long enough.” 

In some cases, however, charges were preferred. Sample was discharged be¬ 
cause he owed a debt of ten dollars for a cloak for his sister; but Crane, appointed 
by Jones, who owed forty-seven dollars, is retained. And Jones tells Sarah Sim¬ 
mons, the widow to whom he owes the money, that he had no power to turn Crane 
off if he did’nt pay it. 

Sometimes charges are preferred ex post facto , as in the case of Wilmingtonj 
who was removed without cause, but when an investigation was demanded, a 
charge was trumped up that he acted as challenger at the last Presidential elec¬ 
tion. This was signed by six persons, one of whom afterwards stated that he did 
not know Wilmington by sight, and another of whom repudiated his signature 
and said he did not know what he signed. The actual challenger, Plummer, 
proved that Wilmington was absent, and the books at Wilmington’s office show 
that he was there and not at the polls during election day. This is a charge 
against a Republican. Yet Browning, one of the new appointees, worked actively 
at a primary, made-motions and speeches and had a fight with one Hennesy. He 
still remains. 

There are many curious characters among the new appointees. For instance, 
the negro, Harrison, now under bond for forgery, whose autograph letter was 
shown, in which he promised to let a client’s suit go by default in consideration of 
ten dollars, to be paid in advance. Then we have Charles Noe, who was still warm 
in the service when he was detected stealing registered letters, pleaded guilty and 
was sentenced. Another carrier who passed the examination creditably can not 
read the superscriptions of his letters. The affidavits of six witnesses were taken 
to whom he has applied to read for him the plain addresses of letters which he 
was to deliver. He had to be removed from the route and set to collecting mail. 
He is a politician of long standing. How did he pass the examination? 

Another carrier is appointed who mis-delivers a letter to Mr. Ferguson, and 
when complaint is made auswers, “I leave just such mail here as I like; if you 
don’t like it you may go to hell.” That man is still retained. 

The recapitulation shows that in the unclassified service in the Federal build¬ 
ing all were removed and succeeded by Democrats; and in the classified service, 
of seventy-one former incumbents thirty six have been forced out, while forty-three 
Democrats have been appointed. The effect upon the service has been most in¬ 
jurious. Complaints of letters misdirected, engagements lost, of important mail 
matter misdelivered occur almost every day. 

The Labor Signal says: “ Every week we have numerous complaints from sub¬ 
scribers who fail to receive their paper. We know that copies of the paper plainly 
addressed have been found among the waste in the basement of the office.” The 
janitor who disclosed this fact, however, is severely rebuked by Jones, and told 
that he must not tell outside what happens within. Sellers, of the Peddlers’ Ex¬ 
change, hauled waste paper from the postoffice, and in sorting it found, in August 
a year ago, a draft for $1,000 in the pile, another smaller draft, and large pack- 


9 


ages of unopened letters, which he returned to the office, and was cautioned to say 
nothing about it. At one time there were 200 letters, at another about 100, and at 
a third time one letter. Mr. Jones discontinued the sale of waste paper to the firm 
which made such discoveries. Who gets the paper now? What does the sorting 
disclose ? 

Formerly mail from the west over the Vandalia was delivered the same day. 
Now it is not delivered until the next morning. The enumeration of instances of 
deterioration can be prolonged indefinitely. 

The Neivs of July 14, 1886, publishes this question : “ The law says to every¬ 

body, in our Indianapolis postoffice, for example, ‘ So long as you honestly per¬ 
form your duty you shall retain your place.’ Has this law been honestly and 
fairly followed in our postoffice? Let us have a direct answer to this question.” 
The Sentinel says, “And we answer no, it has not; it never was, and until the em¬ 
ployes of the Government cease to identify themselves with the party in power and 
cease to obstruct the party of opposition, it never will be nor ever should be.” 

Mr. Jones says publicly of the law, “I despise it.” Why then is he permitted 
to remain there to nullify it? But the administration of the Indianapolis post- 
office, bad as it is, is better than the remaining civil service in this state. The 
Pendleton act still imposes some slight restraints upon the spoilsmen. 

There are sixteen second-class postoffices, and in fifteen the former postmasters 
have been succeeded by Democrats. Among the subordinates the records show 
that there has been almost a total change. Hardly a Republican remains any¬ 
where. There are seventy-six third-class offices, and in sixty-eight the postmasters 
have been succeeded by Democrats. There are about 1,800 fourth-class offices, and 
in about 1,200 the postmasters have been changed. The unchanged offices are not 
desirable places. 

In the Custom House at Indianapolis, the District Attorney’s office, the Mar¬ 
shal’s office, the Collectors of Internal Revenue, in the Districts of Indianapolis, 
Kokomo and Terre Haute, there has been an absolutely clean sweep, with the ex¬ 
ception of eight persons altogether. 

In the railway mail service, although some Republicans remain, the changes 
have been very numerous, and the service has been thrown into considerable dis¬ 
order. Large quantities of unworked mail are frequently seen. On the Vandalia 
line from forty to one hundred and sixty sacks of mail have been carried into St. 
Louis four days in the week unworked. Illinois mail for the east has reached In¬ 
dianapolis with as high as twenty-three sacks unworked. In leaving Indianapolis 
men are not nimble enough to work the mail for the first stations, and compara¬ 
tively large quantities are now carried past to be returned some hours later. 
Other lines running through Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, have carried into St. 
Louis one hundred and nineteen sacks unworked. This service was formerly pos¬ 
sessed of a fine body of trained men, and had reached a high state of efficiency, 
but the men have been largely displaced by politicians who were given their posi¬ 
tions as a reward to Congressmen. The bulk of them are inferior men. The 
influence of Congressmen is seen in appointment everywhere. The new appointees 
have taken the most active part in political work. 

The Administration interpreted the term “ offensive partizanship ” in the case 
of Robert L. Taylor, pension agent at Knoxville, who was anxious to attend a con¬ 
vention where he expected to be nominated for Governor, and wrote asking per¬ 
mission to do so. He was answered that his presence at the convention would 
place him and the Administration in a position subject to misconstruction, and 
permission was withheld. The suspension of J. B. Hill, marshal, in North Caro- 


10 


lina was due, according to General Garland, to his presence at a Republican con¬ 
vention in the First Congressional District, and the canvass by which he was 
appointed to said convention as a delegate. But the appointees of the Democratic 
Congressmen in Indiana have taken a most active part in local politics without 
restraint. Page after page of Mr. Swift’s report is filled with illustrations of 
scores of office-holders whose appointment is due to Congressmen Howard, Lamb, 
Lowry, Matson, Holman, Bynum and others, taking the most active and often the 
most unscrupulous part in proceedings for the renomination of the dispensers of 
the patronage by which they were appointed. It is not necessary to recite to an 
audience in this city the cases of August M. Kuhn, James T. Dowling, O. T. 
Weils, R. P. Corey and others. The character of some appointees has been so bad 
that the Sentinel in an editorial some months age, was constrained to cry “ halt” 
and to protest against the further appointment of criminals and jail-birds, and to 
ask that honest Democrats be given a chance. In some instances complaints have 
been made to the Postmaster General and to the President, but hitherto without 
effect. A long list is given of Federal appointees, who at the time of their ap¬ 
pointment were connected with Democratic newspapers. This, however, did not 
stand in the way, though it has been cause of many removals of Republicans. 

There was another matter which was submitted to the Association a year ago, 
but which it was thought best not to take up at that time.1 But a resolution passed 
at the meeting this afternoon indicates that the Association now regard it as a 
proper subject of its criticism. A letter addressed by President Cleveland to the 
President of the National League stated that it was the opinion of the President 
that a removal of the present incumbents disconnected with the policy of the Ad¬ 
ministration, should not be made during their terms of office solely upon partisan 
grounds, and for the purpose of putting in their places those who are in political 
accord with the appointing power. In accordance with this declaration it was re¬ 
quired in the Postoffice Department that some charge of misconduct should be 
prefered against these subordinate officers before removals should be made. A 
comprehensive inquiry was made as to the cause of numerous suspensions, both in 
this State and elsewhere, and 136 replies revealed the fact that in only two in¬ 
stances had there been any investigation or notice served upon the incumbent as 
to the character of the charge made against him and that no opportunity had been 
afforded for defense, denial or explanation, and that in many cases the first infor - 
mation upon the subject received by the officer suspended was by newspaper report 
or upon the presentation of the order of suspension by the new appointee. 

Requests were frequently made for information respecting the charges and an 
opportunity for investigation; but no such opportunity was given, nor were the 
charges disclosed. The President was personally interviewed in regard to this 
system of making removals and the names of the persons removed were given him. 
It was found that removals upon secret charges were with his personal approval; 
that he considered it impracticable to inform postmasters of charges against them;, 
and although they asked for such information he stated that it could not be furn¬ 
ished them. The reason why charges are required under such circumstances is 
not obvious. It was ascertained that they were frequently made by persons wholly 
irresponsible, and sometimes by those who did not pretend to know the facts. It 
is evident to anyone that it is not possible to procure accurate information until 
both sides have at least a chance to be heard. Such a system would appear to be 
the product of the President’s personal desire to conform to the language of his 
letter to Mr. Curtis and the clamor of office seekers for the spoils. Such a system 
encourages spies and informers, slander, falsehood and suspicion. Frequently the 


11 


accuser is rewarded for his secret slander by appointment to the office. Instances 
could be multiplied indefinitely. 

Postmaster 4. B. Bone, of Shelbvville, was suspended upon charges, the char¬ 
acter of which he could not ascertain. Senator Harrison forwarded a letter from 
him to the Postmaster General thus endorsed: “The fact that this man is an 
Amt-rican citizen should entitle him to know the charges against him ; ” but no 
attention was paid even to this. 

The system of preferring secret charges against incumbents has born its legiti¬ 
mate fruit in the preferring of secret charges by one Democrat against another. 
The refusal of the President to disclose to the Senate the papers on file containing 
charges upon which removals were made, however completely it may be justified 
upon purely legal grounds, leaves an irresistable inference that there is much 
concealed in the files of the department that will not bearthe light. The Senate 
itself is perhaps equally 10 blame in preserving secrecy as to proceedings on confir¬ 
mation ; but we must remember that it was the President who refused these dis¬ 
closures, who had said in his letter of acceptance, “ The voters of the land have 
learned that mystery and concealment in the management of their affairs cover 
tricks and betrayals.” 

Let us consider for a moment the significance of these removals upon charges 
which are to remain undisclosed. This is not a case of mere mistaken appoint¬ 
ments which may be attributed to erroneous information ; it is the deliberate 
adoption of and adherence to an utterly vicious principle. It is to say in effect 
that no one but the man who will consent to prefer charges against his neighbor, 
which he knows are neither to be seen nor answered, is to be rewarded with the 
coveted place. It is to hold out by a uniform system a direct premium to libel 
and false testimony, which is to be protected by the gloom of perpetual secrecy. 
The files of the Department are the great lion’s mouth for the reception of charges 
against the guilty and innocent alike. To adopt such a course is deliberately to 
establish that law of most unatural selection which leads inevitably to the survival 
of the most unfit. It is only the man who will descend to secret calumny who is 
rewarded by the spoils of office. It is a policy which poisons afresh the shafts of 
malice with a venom which destroys not only the reputation of the victim but 
his livelihood. The first that is known of the charge is from the reading of the 
sentence. And this is done under the direction of a President who has told us 
that the lessons of the past must be unlearned, and that fitness and not political 
service is to constitute the only just claim for office. 

Civil service reform makes headway rapidly in our educational institutions. 
The instructors in colleges are generally on our side. The two civil service 
reform clubs in Indiana outside of the State Association, one at Bloomington 
and one at Greencastle, both university towns, are sustained largely from the fac¬ 
ulty and students of Indiana and DePauw universities. This promises much 
good in another generation, but it is only the commencement of our great 
work of spreading the propaganda through the State. The bulk of the people, 
those who follow the plow, and the workmen in our factories, are not yet fairly 
awake to the necessity of civil service reform, nor do they see its advantages to 
them and their children. Now, unless we can reach that broad substratum of pop¬ 
ular feeling upon which our political institutions rest we can have no permanent 
foundation for this reform. Before the lasting growth of our principles can 
be assured, they must be deeply rooted in the soil. The great body of the peo¬ 
ple must believe in them or they are not safe. And it is not enough merely to se¬ 
cure the assent of intellect. They should become a moving, animating principle; 


12 


they must be the object of love; they must form part of the farmer’s patriotism; 
they must be dear to him in the same sense as the common school system and the 
jury trial; they should be held by him in the same kind of religious veneration 
with which he regards the principles for which his brother died a quarter of a 
century ago, when he lays his flowers and tears together upon that brother’s grave. 
They must stand side by side in the imaginations of his heart with all the bright 
thoughts which cluster around the sacred name of his country. They must be 
united in his spirit with those liberties which he loves so well and which they are 
necessary to perpetuate. With every thought of his country’s honor there should 
blend some recollection, even unknown to himself, of that wise and just system by 
which alone his country’s honor can be preserved from the greed of the spoilsman 
and the corrupting power of the ambitious and self-seeking. When we have im¬ 
bedded all these things in the great, honest heart of the country, then, and not till 
then, is civil service reform at all secure. We must plow deep into the soil of pa¬ 
triotic feeling. Professors might demonstrate and statesmen argue; but it was not 
until the great heart of England was awakened by the gaunt form of famine, and 
Bright and Cobden lit with the torch of their indignant eloquence the pictures of 
the thousands who were starving from a hunger created by a merciless statute that 
the corn laws were repealed. The great power which still moves the community 
is not mere naked reason, but earnest feeling. Until we touch the heart, our talk 
is but sounding brass and a tinkling symbal. 

And we must learn to wait. Pindar, the poet of the Dorians, tells us that 
“After days are eyer the wisest witnesses ” These we invoke; to them we turn 
with faces full of hope; knowing that whatever may betide in this lustrum or the 
next, that the aftertimes of a republic which shall be preserved by this reform 
from that corruption which is nourished by the spoils of office, will cherish the 
work of those who have borne ever so small a part in the battle for the integrity of 
popular government and the perpetuation of free institutions upon the earth. 




~ T - 

-- 

— 

1 

‘ 1- 




~i 

i 

T T 

1 V 




..C 


..E 


j. 

.VI 

1 □ 




ivil SGrvicG Inform Association 


DOCUMENT No. 4 


A Supplemental Report relating to the Civil Service in the 

Indianapolis Post-Office. 


Indianapolis, July 14, 1888. 


To the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association 


Gentlemen — I ask leave to submit to you two or three of the late instances 
of the management of the civil service in the Indianapolis post-office. 

J. A. Downey on the 7th of May last had been a letter-carrier of the Indi¬ 
anapolis post-office for fifteen years and had had the same route the entire time. 
This route included one side of that part of Meridian street in this city devoted 
mostly to the wholesale trade, and considering the value of the interests involved 
and the supreme necessity of promptness and regularity in delivering and taking 
up its mail, the route was of the highest importance. 

Toward the last of April, 1888, Postmaster Jones called Downey into his 
room and told him that he wanted his resignation either willingly or otherwise, 
by May I Oth. In answer to questions by Downey, Jones told him that he had noth¬ 
ing against him, but that he simply wanted his place for another man. Downey, 
depending entirely on his pay for support and not having expected a dismissal, 
asked the chairman of the Democratic county committee, and for whom he had 
carried mail for years, to ask Postmaster Jones to extend his time a little to give 
him a chance to look for another place, which, he correctly anticipated, his 
partial deafness would render it difficult to find. The chairman did so and a 
few days later Jones called Downey in and told him that he would extend his 
time to .June 1st if Downey would then resign without any “fuss.” Downey 



























9 


agreed to do so. Again Jones repeated that he had nothing against him, but 
wanted his place for another man and would give him a recommendation at the 
proper time. 

At this point the people for whom the work was being done and whose 
interest presumably was first to be consulted, stepped in, entirely without 
Downey’s knowledge, as follows: 


“Indianapolis, May 3, 1888. 

“ Mr. Aquilla ■lanes, Postmaster , Indianapolis; 

“Dear Sir: We, the undersigned, whose mail is and has been delivered 
by J. A. Downey, one of the letter carriers of your office, understand that his 
resignation has been asked for by you. 

“We hereby express our highest satisfaction with the manner in which he 
has performed his duties and respectfully ask that he be retained in the service. 


M. T. Kelly. 

W. W. McCrea. 

II. II. McGaffey. 

J. D. Moore. 

Geo. Hoffman. 

From in ever Bros. 

0. Gates. 

R. H. McCrea 

J.- Frommeyer 

Charles L. Bieler. 

Aug. Deitrichs. 

II. Frommeyer. 

J. H. Sypliers. 

David Neuman. 

H. Techentin & Co. 

B. P. Brown. 

Fred. C. Kreutler. 

M. S. Zimmerman. 

Syphers, McBride & Co. 

David Kahn. 

Omer Rodibaugh, 

W. A. Applegate. 

I. L. Segar. 

W. G. Sherman. 

Hollweg & Reese. 

F. L. Spahr. 

John Haslinger. 

Charles C. Caldwell. 

Wm. Daggett. 

Levey Bros. & Co. 

Daggett & Co. 

Jno. F. Darmody. 

W. J. Griffin. 

W. H. Schmidt. 

H. P. Makepeace 

Fred. Riebel. 

Griffith Bros. 

Vaula Saunders. 

Daniel Stewart. 

Fahnley & McCrea. 

J. S. Lakin. 

John W. Carey. 

McCune, Schmidlap & Co. 

W. Schwenro^g. 

Lewis A Langdon. 

Schwabacher& Selig. 

Charles Reimer. 

Wm. Y. Burkert. 

Hays Bros. 

Joseph G. Tilly. 

II. L Brown. 

George C. Webster, Jr. 

G. A. Schmitt. 

Julius M. Mathews. 

C. F. Wm. Cook. 

L. Schmidlap. 

W. M Levey. 

Jno. Reagan. 

E. McCune. 

L. H. Levey. 

A. W. Reagau. 

Charles McBride. 

A. W. Glassbrenner. 

N. J. Sumner. 

C. J. W. Parker, Jr. 

L. D. Wells. 

W. M. Ballard. 

T. A. Alford. 

P. M. Hildebrand. 

Conduitt & Sons. 

Reynolds Raschig. 

Hildebrand & Fugate 

J. D. Rook. 

Henry Schnull. 

C. S. Hilldebrand. 

Asburv York. 

W. J. Marks. 

John Vestal. 

C. H. York. 

M. Manion. 

Lucius B. Swift 

George M. Duncan. 

Wm. H. Bennett & Son. 

B. F. Witt. 

J. A. Richards. 

R. R. Bennett. 

Coons Graham. 

C. S. McCloskey. 

Fred. A. Swan. 

C. & E. W. Bradford 

Fred. Cook. 

H. B. Mahoney. 

T. W. Gardner. 

William Weigel. 

Indiana Cigar Co. 

Livingston Howland. 

Hugo Priller. 

D. C. Hitt. 

N. McCarty 


J. U Rhodehamel. 
Herm. Weinberger. 
Frank Bachtrog. 

Gust. Hess. 

Howland, Condit, & Co. 
Id. E. Zimmer. 
Hawkins & Shaw. 

Ben. F. Kohne. 


-T. K. Sharp, Sr. 

J. K. Sharp, Jr. 

IT. H. Condit. 

S. N. Collins. 

H. W. Diamond. 

L. W. Drew. 
Fairbanks & Co. 
McKee & Branham. 


Wm S. Hubbard. 
C. W. H. Brown. 
John T. Gardner. 
E. D. Gardner. 

L. W. Comstock. 
John IT. Ohr. 
Moore & Coughlen. 


Except possibly a few persons who may have been missed and three who 
refused to sign, the list embraces all the people, Democrats, Republicans and 
those of all other political proclivities, for whom Downey worked. The presi¬ 
dent of the Hendricks club and two other Democrats refused to sign, but not one 
had any fault to find with the way in which the work had been done. 

This petition was taken to Jones by Mr. John C. Perry, a large wholesale 
grocer. Jones said he would not grant it because Downey had agreed that if 
he would extend his time to June 1st, he would resign and that he had 
promised his place to another man. The change was made at that date. 

Andrew -I. Wells served through the Mexican War as a private and was a 
soldier in the Union army during the entire War of Secession. He was made 
lieutenant for conduct on the battle field of Shiloh. To-day completes nineteen 
years and one month’s service in this post-office. During that time, except as 
hereinafter stated, he has received but one demerit mark, which was for a tardi¬ 
ness of two minutes. A few days ago he was handed his dismissal, to take effect 
to-day, for failure to perform his duties and for insubordination. He was told 
that his failure to perform his duties consisted in not having taken the mail from 
a certain box last Sunday. The box was not and never has been upon his route. 
He, however, passes it every day and as a matter of accommodation to the carrier 
upon that route, he has, by an arrangement made in 1883, ever since taken the 
mail from that box on week days—never on Sundays, and he never was ordered 
to do it on Sundays. His insubordination consisted in simply attempting to 
defend himself when charged by James H. Deery, head of carriers, with the 
failure to perform his duties, as above stated. It was done in proper language 
and manner. But Deery remarked that he must have discipline, and a failure to 
keep quiet was evidently in his mind a breach of that requirement. Mr. Wells 
is a well-known and respected citizen and is held as a model public servant by 
the people whom he served in that capacity. 

Side by side with these cases, I set another. Postmaster Jones appointed 
John R. Tompkins a clerk in this post-office. He had not been a soldier, but 
his father had served in the Confederate army. He was put to work at one of 
the delivery windows, in view of the public passing through the post-office ves- 


4 


tibule. The records of the Marion County Criminal Court show the following, 
filed November 17, 1887: 

“State of Indiana versus John R. Tompkins. No. 20329. 

“The grand jurors for the county of Marion and State of Indiana, upon their 
oath, present that John R. Tompkins, on the 4th day of October, A. D. 1887, at 
and in the county of Marion and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully 
give to Alice M. Archer, who was then and there a person under the age of 
twenty-one years, a quantity of intoxicating liquor greater than a gill and less 
than a quart, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided 
and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.” 

In the same case, November 26, 1887, the following entry was made in Order 
Book 23, at page 469: 

“Comes now the State of Indiana by James L. Mitchell, Prosecuting Attor¬ 
ney, comes also the defendant in person and by counsel [Aquilla Q. Jones]. The 
said defendant now waives arraignment to the indictment herein, and enters a 
plea of guilty. It is by the court, therefore, ordered and adjudged, that the said 
defendant, for the offense by him so committed, do make his fine to the State of 
Indiana in the penal sum of twenty-five dollars, that he pay the fine and costs 
herein and stand committed until said fine and costs are paid or replevied.” 

The additional undisputed facts are, that the “ person under the age of twen¬ 
ty-one years” was a girl thirteen years and some months old. That she got 
acquainted with Tompkins in passing through the vestibule of the post-office on 
her way to and from school. That he asked her to ride, and met her away from 
home at night for that purpose. That the liquor was given her at a saloon 
across Fall Creek, outside of the city, and again at a resort some five miles fur¬ 
ther in the country. The arrested man was first brought before the Mayor. 
One of the sons of Postmaster Jones appeared as his attorney, and the matter 
was sent to the grand jury. The same attorney appeared when the prisoner 
plead guilty and was fined in the Criminal Court. The grand jury is known as 
“ Sullivan’s Grand Jury,” and is the same that refused, in the face of the plainest 
evidence, to indict the tally-sheet forgers, who have since been sent to the peni¬ 
tentiary by the United States Court. 

When arrested, Tompkins was suspended by Postmaster Jones. Afterwards, 
he was returned to his clerkship in the post-office and is in that position now. 

The termination of the case in the Criminal Court was not published in the 
papers at the time as is usually done, and the public was first informed of the 
termination when it was observed that Tompkins had returned to work. How 
long he had then been reinstated is not known, as he was put at work which 
kept him usually from public view. 

Comment can not add anything to these cases. They'are simply additional 


5 


examples of the brazen shamelessness with which Postmaster Jones, in violation 
of his oath of office and of the law, has worked out all but twelve of the former 
employes, and in every case has worked in and kept in his partisans. He started 
in by saying that he would not appoint Republicans in the classified service, no 
matter how high they stood on examination, and he never has. He started in by 
saying publicly of the law, “ I despise it,” and without hindrance he has literally 
spewed it out of his post-office. March 30, 1888, he said in the Indianapolis 
Sentinel: “When 1 filled a vacancy, I always put in a Democrat, who had 
passed the civil service examination, in preference to a Republican—a course 
which was not only natural, but entirely justifiable.” With the commencement 
of his operations the service began to deteriorate, and during all this time this 
city has had, and has now, an inefficient and unreliable mail service. And the 
working efficiency of the office was never so badly wrecked as it is to-day! 
Within six months, mail has lain undistributed in this office until the rats have 
eaten through the sacks and built nests in it. 

The difference between the men dismissed and the men appointed by Post¬ 
master Jones is radical. I distinctly make a few exceptions from both bodies. 
But, in the aggregate, the former were tidy; these are not. The former had a 
good bearing; these have not. The former took pride in their work and in the 
high grade of their office; these care little but for pay-day and in some way to 
get mail off of their hands. The former were extremely careful; these are care¬ 
less to exasperation. The former were complete masters of the work of the 
office; these practically never are. The former were thoroughly skilled; these 
are unskilled, and have no desire to become skilled. The former were ruled by 
the postmaster; these act and feel independent of the postmaster. The former 
were not “offensive partisans;” these are petty politicians. This comparison 
could be carried farther and into matters more offensive, but it is sufficient to 
say that if the merit system, impartially carried out, should produce such results, 
the law would better be repealed. 

At the present time the indications are that Postmaster Jones means to take 
away every place from the twelve remaining old employes and put in his parti¬ 
sans before the coming election. * In some cases he picks up a cause: this is the 
only lawful ground for dismissal. But the same rule should be applied to all 
alike. Now Postmaster-Jones does not apply the same rule to all. This charge 
was shown to be true two years ago and it is true now. Few can compare the 
retention of Tompkins with the dismissal of Wells “for cause,” without a feeling 
of outrage; this is the spoils system in its most degraded form. George, a 
Democratic carrier, grossly insulted a reputable citizen for remonstrating with 
him about unbearable blunders in the delivery of mail; yet the citizen could not 

*One, G. W. Sulgrove, a soldier, has since been notified to leave August first. 



6 


t 

even get a respectful hearing from Jones. But a street car driver told Jones 
that Sterns, a Republican, had made a slighting remark of Mr. Hendricks. 
Sterns denied it, yet he was dismissed instantly and was refused time to bring 
witnesses to sustain his denial, while George is in the service to-day. Two 
Republican carriers, Eddy and Armstead, fight, and are dismissed forthwith. 
Two Democratic carriers, Ellis and McDonald, fight, and are retained. He dis¬ 
missed Sample, a Republican, for owing a debt of $10.00 to a store keeper, 
which he was trying under difficulties to pay. But he refused to dismiss Crane, 
a Democrat, who owed a widow $47.96, and would not pay. After he had 
dismissed Wilmington, a soldier of four years’ service and a clerk without fault, 
Jones said he had done it because Wilmington had been a challenger at the 
polls at the presidential election of 1884. This charge was proved to be a. delib¬ 
erate falsehood; yet Wilmington has not been reinstated, and Jones has not even 
apologized for his dishonorable course. On the other hand, Postmaster Jones 
has always allowed his Democratic employes to indulge in all manner of politi¬ 
cal activity, of which late examples are Conklin, a clerk, going without permis¬ 
sion, but unpunished, to' the St. Louis convention, which recently renominated 
President Cleveland, and James H. Deery, head of carriers and chairman of a 
seventh ward meeting to form a Cleveland campaign club; and while the 

Government at one end was spending money to bring “Sim” Coy, the tally 

sheet forger to justice, .employes of the post-office, without rebuke from Jones, 
were contributing it at the other to help Coy to escape Further, Jones kept 
the negro, “Mugwump” Harrison, after it had come to light that he had offered 
to sell his services in 1884 to a Republican for $25.00. Later he offered his ser¬ 
vices to organize Democratic clubs to Mr. Simeon Coy, then chairman of the 
Democratic county committee, if the latter would assist in the “incidental ex¬ 
penses.” Then it came to light that as an attorney in the case of Swannegan 
v. Swannegan he had in writing offered to sell out his client for $10.00, 
“nothing more or less.” He spoke of it as a “digression from the ordinary course 
of practice.” All this did not seem to stagger Postmaster Jones. But 

when Harrison was tried in the criminal court on a charge of forgery and was 

found innocent by the jury, Jones discharged him. Following the Tompkins 
case it might be reasoned that if Harrison had plead guilty, he might, after 
suffering his punishment, have again taken up his duties as carrier. These few 
examples, taken at random, show that the rule has not been the same for all. 
The history of this office during the past three years has been and is now fittingly 
crowned by the spectacle of John Dodd as the ruling spirit of the local civil 
service examining board. 

Nearly all of these facts have been brought before the Administration— 
a course which it is useless to pursue further. The Administration is not un¬ 
informed. It has never been without an absolute and instantaneous remedy. 


7 


Its studied indifference to violation of law is the insolence of office, and it is 
alike insulting to civil service reformers and to the people of Indiana. 

The cause of civil service reform is not lost in Indiana. In no other state 
does it progress so rapidly. Two years ago the lower branch of legislature 
passed, by a decided majority, the best reform bill that has yet been drawn and 
it only needed a change of four votes to get it through the upper house, when 
legislation became locked by a rupture between the houses. There is every 
prospect that at the coming election a General Assembly will be returned that 
will gladly pass this bill. 

And the time will come when this post-office will have a postmaster and a 
local examining board, who will have the confidence of the people as an upright 
judge has it, and whose conscientious performance of their duties will not fill 
this office with a crop of favorites and ward politicians and all of one political 
stripe. Then every man or woman in Indiana who wants to share in public 
employment, will, without hesitation, enter the competitive lists and will feel 
that whatever his color, his religion, his politics, his occupation or his social 
station, and however devoid of official or partisan influence, he will be fairly 
and justly treated and that if by the competitive tests he is the best man, he will 
receive an appointment accordingly. And further, when he has thus obtained 
his position, he will not be deprived of it by thimble-rigging “politics,” but he 
will be judged by the way in which he does his work—by his faithfulness and 
efficiency alone. That condition of doing the public business upon business 
principles, will, by comparison, only make more apparent the trickery of the 
management of the past three years. 


LUCIUS B. SWIFT. 







' 













• 









' 








4 


* 








- 











• 


































INDIANA 


‘Civil Service Reform Association. 

u 

DOCUMENT No. 5. 


Annual Address of the President , Wm. D. Foulke . 


January 23, 1889. 


* 


The Indiana Civil Service Reform Association is now enter¬ 
ing upon its fourth year. The enthusiasm of its members is as great 
as ever, and the fields of its activity have been much extended. Its 
influence has spread far beyond the boundaries of this State. Our 
work has lately been of a character quite different from that of the 
first two years. During those years, we investigated abuses, first, 
in the matter of Federal appointments; second, in respect to the 
State Benevolent Institutions, particularly the Hospital for the 
Insane. 

The results of the investigation in regard to the Federal service 
were laid before the President by the National League. The re¬ 
sults of our inquiries as to the Insane Hospital, were submitted to 
the last General Assembly. The evils in both cases remained un¬ 
corrected, and it then became our duty to set them before the 
people and endeavor to Tight, at the judgment-seat of public 
opinion, those wrongs which the tribunals of officialism and parti¬ 
sanship would not redress. We made up our minds to tell the 
world in every way we could, the evils which those in power would 
do nothing to correct. We invoked that love of country which 







rises above mere party feeling, to rebuke the prostitution of pa¬ 
tronage and the shame of spoilscraft, and we feel to day that our 
call has not been left without an answer. The administrations, 
both State and national, which permitted these abuses, have been 
distinctly rebuked, and it now remains for us to do what we can 
to see that the iniquities which, more than any other cause, led to 
the defeat of one party, are not perpetuated by its successor. 

During the past year, while our Association has directed its 
attention to many objects, to the assistance of the Attorney-Gene¬ 
ral, in the suit brought by him for the removal of the Trustees of 
the Insane, to the propagation of our reform by papers, and ad¬ 
dresses delivered before various colleges, editorial associations and 
other societies in this State; while we have sent a number of rep¬ 
resentatives to the National League, who have taken an active 
part in its discussions, and have read papers in connection with 
subjects which have been developed by our labors, yet the chief 
work of the Association has been that of disseminating the facts 
ascertained by our previous investigations in respect to the con¬ 
duct of the Federal administration in this State. We invited the 

♦ 

Senate Investigating Committee to visit Indiana and examine for 
themselves the’ character of our Federal appointments. 
Two members of the Association appeared before this Committee, 
at its request, and made a detailed statement of the facts ascer¬ 
tained in our former investigations. The statements of these 
members were referred to, at considerable length, in the majority 
..and minority reports of the committee. The conclusions of the 
Republican majority, presented to the Senate by the Honorable 
Eugene Hale, gave considerable prominence and weight to the 
disclosure of abuses made by this Association, while the report of 
the minority, presented by Senator Blackburn, a man who had 
pronounced civil service reform an “abortion,’' very consistently 
.attempted to discredit the results of our work. 

I think we may claim, however, that the people formed a pretty 
just conclusion as to the course pursued by the President in respect 
to this State. Opinions will differ as to the degree in which the 
President failed to live up to his principles. Opinions will differ 
;as to the wisdom of civil service reform and its importance as 
• compared with other issues before the country, but I think that 
mone can be found to-day who will say that Mr. Cleveland has 


— 3 


been wholly true to the standard of reform which he set up at the 
commencement of his administration, or who will not admit that 
he has dealt a serious blow to his own reputation in leaving so 
wide a chasm between his promise and his performance. 

For our part, we are not disposed to excuse the out-going 
Executive for his failure ; with us, neither the temptations of office, 
nor the approval of his political associates; neither the desire for a 
second term, nor the advocacy of any other wise or beneficent 
measure, has been sufficient to palliate or condone the abandon¬ 
ment of this reform. 

Upon the grave of the present Administration, so far, at least, 
as the civil service is concerned, history will write the epitaph* of 
failure, and every political party which may succeed to power, will 
be the better for the warning there inscribed. 

But our duty now is, not to the past, but to the future. 

Our work in regard to the administration of Mr. Cleveland 
has been completed. Our task in respect to his successor has not 
yet begun. 

The next question is: What have we a right to expect from 
the Republican party and the incoming administration? That party 
acquired power upon certain definite promises made to the people, 
and embodied in the National platform. We have a right to de¬ 
mand that these promises shall be fulfilled. This is the language: 
“ The men who abandoned the Republican party in 1884 and con¬ 
tinue to adhere to the Democratic party, have deserted not only 
the cause of honest government, of sound finance, of freedom, of 
purity of the ballot, but especially have they deserted the cause of 
reform in the civil service. We will not fail to keep our pledges 
because they have broken theirs , or because their candidate has 
broken his.” We have, therefore, not only condemnation of the 
Independents, and their candidate, as not sufficiently faithful to re¬ 
form ; not only is there the strongest implied promise to do a great 
deal better than Mr. Cleveland, but the platform on this point is 
made not simply a declaration of policy, but a definite “ pledge' ’ 
to the people, which it would be shameful and dishonorable for an 
Administration acquiring power upon the strength of it not to carry 
out. 

The platform goes on: “We therefore repeat our declaration 
of 1884, to-wit: The reform of the civil service auspiciously begun 


4 — 


under a Republican administration, should be completed by the 
further extension of the reform system, already established by law, 
to all the grades of the service to which it is applicable. The 
spirit and purpose of reform should be observed in all Executive 
appointments, and all laws at variance with the object of existing 
reform legislation, should be repealed, to the end that the dangers 
to free institutions, which lurk in the power of official patronage, 
may be wisely and effectively avoided.” 

General Harrison tells us in his letter of acceptance, that in 
regard to every subject embraced in the platform, he is in entire 
agreement with the declarations of the convention. He is there¬ 
fore in agreement with every part of this pledge, and has made it 
his own distinct promise. Those who know Gen. Harrison believe 
that there will be a substantial fulfillment of every promise made. 

Now, what is the meaning of the platform? It is capable of 
pretty definite construction. If these words were contained in a 
statute, or a contract, and the matter should come before a court 
for determination, the judge would have little difficulty in ascer¬ 
taining their meaning. 

“The reform should be extended to all grades of the service to 
which it is applicable.” This is the pledge. By whom must that 
extension be made? Undoubtedly by that branch of the Govern¬ 
ment which is now invested with control over executive appoint¬ 
ments. 

The Constitution declares that “the executive power shall be 
vested in the President.” This includes the power of appointment 
to executive offices, except where otherwise provided by law. 

It is the President then, and not Congress, to whom we must 
look for the redemption of this pledge for the further extension ot 
the reform system. The promise can under no circumstances be 
fulfilled by a mere approval by the Executive of additional reform 
legislation. The affirmative act of extending the system must be 
done by the President, in whose hands the power now resides. 
Congress has already enacted legislation which amply authorizes 
the Executive to make the extensions promised. Section 1753 of 
the Revised Statutes, provides: “The President is authorized to 
prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the 
civil service of the United States as may best promote the effici- 


5 


ency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate; * 

and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to 
conduct inquiries, and may prescribe their duties and establish reg¬ 
ulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments 
in the civil service.” 

The power is therefore plenary. Should Congress be solic¬ 
ited to pass new laws, extending the operation of the reform sys¬ 
tem, the answer could be fitly made that the power to do this is 
already possessed by the Executive. The President has the right 
to extend the rules, and he has given his promise in accepting the 
nomination under this platform, that they shall be extended to all 
grades of the service to which they are applicable. 

The next question is: To what grades of the service is the 
reform system applicable ? This, also, is capable of pretty definite 
ascertainment. The Civil Service Act itself enumerates other 
grades of the service to which it is applicable, and to which it has 
not yet been extended. The sixth section of the Act makes it 
the duty of the Postmaster-General to classify the public service 
at each post-office where there are as many as fifty persons em¬ 
ployed. “ And thereafter, from time to time, on the direction of 
the President, it shall be the duty of the Postmaster-General to 
arrange in like classes the clerks and persons so employed in the 
postal service in connection with any other post-office.” 

Under this section there have been brought into the classified 
service only thirty-seven post offices. The Statute itself recognizes 
other offices to which the classification should be extended. There is 
no reason why it can not be extended to all offices in cities where 
there is a free delivery of letters and carriers are employed for this 
purpose. There is just as much reason for its application to these 
offices as to the larger places. The duties to be performed are 
substantially the same; the positions are non-political and the 
qualifications for holding them are the same. There is no court 
in the land that in construing the promise of the platform would 
deny that the reform system was applicable to such places. By 
the terms of the Act, it is the duty of the President to direct this 
extension. Such extension he has therefore, in his letter of ac¬ 
ceptance, definitely agreed to make. 

The same section of this Act makes it the duty of the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury to classify the employes of collectors, naval 


6 


officers, surveyors and appraisers, where the number of such em¬ 
ployes shall be equal to fifty, and thereafter, from time to time, on 
the direction of the President, he shall, in like manner, classify the 
employes in connection with any office in any other customs dis¬ 
trict, and all other persons under his department not yet classified. 

The provisions of this section have not yet been fully complied 
with, and the promise of the in-coming Administration is that this 
classification shall also be fully completed. 

The promise to extend the reform system to all grades of the 
service to which it is applicable, certainly includes those grades to 
which civil service regulations have been successfully applied else¬ 
where. In such cases experience has shown that the system is 
applicable. The platform of the Republican party was made with 
reference to this fact. The men who drafted it and the convention 
which adopted it, knew that similar provisions had been success¬ 
fully applied to grades of the service in Massachusetts, in New 
York and elsewhere, to which it had not yet been extended by the 
Federal Civil Service Reform Act, and in promising that it should 
be extended to all grades to which it is. applicable, they certainly 
included those grades to which it has already been successfully ap¬ 
plied. What are these grades? Let me offer an illustration.— 

The experience of Massachusetts has shown very clearly that it 
is desirable that the labor service of the Government should be 
placed under civil service rules. By this means the country will 
avoid the unwholesome spectacle of vast numbers of men employed 
in the navy yards and elsewhere, just before election, in order to 
secure votes and political support. 

The reports of the Civil Service Commissioners in Massachusetts 
testify to the success attending this extension of the system, and 
quote the language of the Mayor of Boston, who said that it had 
been a great relief to that city that the Civil Service Commission 
had thus taken care of the laboring population. He said, “ With 
civil service reform in force, they are no longer in the hands of 
political tricksters.” We may thus fairly understand that the 
President-elect has pledged himself to see to it that rules are 
adopted insuring the application of civil service reform principles 
to the laborers employed for the Government, and that these men 
shall no longer be selected or retained for political reasons, or on 
account of political services. 




By the P ederal Civil Service Act laborers need not be classified 
but there is nothing in the Act, or elsewhere, which prohibits such 
classification. The President has the power to make it. It ought 
to be made and the platform of the Republican party has substan¬ 
tially promised that it shall be made. 

But these are by no means the only classes to which extensions 
should be made. 

The present Civil Service Commissioners, without regard to 
party, have unanimously brought to the attention of the President 
other branches of the service to which the rules may be applied,. 
Among these are included the employes of the Railway Mail 
Service, and many places in the Indian Bureau, in the Land 
Bureau and in the Labor Bureau. They recommended this 
extension to the Indian School Service, showing that persons 
of undoubted qualifications, tested in the manner adopted for test¬ 
ing the qualifications of public school teachers, could thus be furn¬ 
ished, and that by this process the service would be much more 
effective than under the system of appointments by recommen¬ 
dation, which frequently gives inexperience and sometimes gross 
ignorance. 

In the War Department a number of graded clerks employed in 
the several depots at Jeffersonville, New York, Philadelphia, San 
Francisco, St. Louis and Washington, should be brought into the 
classified service as part of the force of the Quartermaster-General's 
office. 

In the Department of Agriculture the classification can also be 
greatly extended. Some of these recommendations have already 
been adopted. In respect to them, civil service reformers believe 
that they have not only the most unqualified promise upon the part 
of the President-elect that the extensions made shall be maintained, 
but also that the law shall be applied to those places to which it is 
not yet extended, but where the unbiased judgment of those best 
qualified to determine, shall declare that it is applicable. 

But the promise in the platform does not stop at the mere ex¬ 
tension of the classified service. “ The spirit and purpose of reform 
should be observed in all executive appointments.” There is not 
an appointment to be made by the incoming President in which it 


8 — 


is not definitely promised that the spirit and purpose of this reform 
shall be observed. 

What is that spirit and purpose? We can collect it from the 
terms of the Act. The commissioners to be appointed are to 
come from both political parties. The fitness of applicants for the 
classified service is to be tested by examination and probation; 
not as to political services and opinions, but as to the duties to be 
performed, and those only who have thus shown their fitness are 
to be appointed. No recommendations from members of Congress 
are to be received or considered. No office-holder need render 
any political service or contribution; he shall have no right to use 
his official authority or influence to coerce the political action of 
anyone. 

The ‘ ‘ spirit and purpose” of all this is, that in subordinate 
offices men are not to be appointed, rejected or discharged on ac¬ 
count of their political work or opinions, but on account of their 
fitness to perform the duties of the office, and that they are not to 
use their official places for political purposes. 

The President-elect, in his letter of acceptance, shows that 
this is his understanding of the spirit and purpose of Civil Service 
Reform. He says, “ In appointments to every grade and depart¬ 
ment, fitness and not party service should be the essential and dis¬ 
criminating test, and fidelity and efficiency the only sure tenure of 
office. Only the interests of the public service should suggest re¬ 
movals from office.” General Harrison has the same understand¬ 
ing that we have of the spirit and purpose of reform, and has sig¬ 
nified his agreement with the pledge of the platform, that this 
spirit and purpose shall be observed in all executive appointments . 

We have his word for it, in the clearest language, that in ap¬ 
pointments to every grade and department, not only of the classi¬ 
fied service, but everywhere, fitness, and not party service, is to 
be the essential and discriminating test, and fidelity and efficiency 
the only sure tenure of office. We believe, therefore, that the 
spectacle will not be repeated of the appointment of new and un¬ 
tried men to positions for which they have shown no qualifica¬ 
tions, on account of the aid given by them to the party, or 
its candidate, during the campaign. Under this, it.will be impos¬ 
sible, for instance, that such a position as a consulship, a place 


9 


requiring business ability, and a knowledge of the language and 
the people of the country where the duties are to be performed, 
shall be filled by a man without business qualifications, and igno¬ 
rant of both language and people, because such person has been 
an effective campaign speaker, or may have been useful in the po¬ 
litical organization of the party in power. Fitness is to be the 
essential and discriminating test. 

But more than this, the President-elect has told us that only 
the interest of the public service should suggest removals from 
office. This means a great deal. It means that the local clamor 
of political aspirants, and even the local political sentiment of the 
community shall not be able to accomplish the removal of that 
Democratic official who has faithfully performed his duty. 

But the Republican platform goes further. Not only is this 
spirit and purpose to be observed, in all executive appointments, 
but all laws at variance with the object of existing reform legisla¬ 
tion are to be repealed. This, of course, affects the legislative 
branch of the government. The object of the existing reform 
legislation is to make the tenure of office dependent upon fitness 
and faithful performance of official duties. The law which pro¬ 
vides that tenure shall depend upon any other fact is at variance 
with the object of such legislation. The Tenure of Office Act makes 
a great number of offices subject to change at the end of every 
four years, irrespective of the fitness of the incumbent. This Act 
gives a pretext for the removal of meritorious officers, upon the 
ground that their term has expired. It promotes the appoint¬ 
ment of those who are inexperienced, and frequently incompetent, 
and the promise in the platform, if it refers to anything, refers to 
this law. Since both branches of Congress are to be controlled 
by the same party as the executive branch of the Government, 
civil service reformers have a right to demand of them the fulfill¬ 
ment of the promise made in the platform, that this Act shall be 
repealed. 

But the platform goes further and states the reason of these re¬ 
forms. These promises are made “ to the end that the dangers to 
free institutions which lurk in the powers of official patronage may 
be wisely and effectively avoided.” What are these dangers ? 
Most prominent among them is the danger that corrupt motives 


10 — 


may control the political action of our citizens in nominations, in 
elections, and in the conduct of the office-holders. We have just 
had here in our country, and in our State, an illustration of these 
dangers. The last Presidential election has been permeated by in¬ 
fluences on both sides which are quite different from the unbiased 
and free choice of the people. 

Each party makes the claim against the other that the past 
election was influenced by force, fraud and venality. 

A few days before election great numbers of so-called special 
deputy marshals were appointed, wholly from one political party, 
for the alleged purpose of protecting the election, and for the evi¬ 
dent real purpose of protecting the interests of that party only, 
and intimidating and coercing its opponents. Men were arrested 
by the score who had committed no crime. These men belonged 
almost exclusively to the opposing political party. In some in¬ 
stances they were taken away from the polls before they had an 
opportunity to vote, and were thus deprived of their franchise. 

Another form of coercion was illustrated where those in charge 
of the county poor, the idiots, imbeciles, and the insane, brought 
them in squads to the polls, placed ballots in their hands, and re¬ 
quired them to vote for the political party which these care-takers 
represented. 

Another form of improper influence exists where the em¬ 
ployer of large bodies of men insists, persuades, and demands of 
them that they shall vote for the party whose success he desires. 
There may be no actual threats, but it frequently occurs that the 
men who thus cast their votes, feel that their security for continu¬ 
ance in place depends upon compliance. There are many working 
men in Indiana, and elsewhere, whose political conduct has been 
controlled by these considerations, and so long as this is true* 
elections are not free. 

Nor was force the only means resorted to. Fraud was pres¬ 
ent at many precincts. Ballots were folded together, one inside 
the other, in such manner that they would separate when inside 
the box. The instances were numerous where the number of bal¬ 
lots cast was in excess of the number of persons voting. 

The popular voice has also been stifled by another 
political scheme known as the Indiana gerrymander of 1885. 


In this we have the remarkable spectacle of a law passed by 
the legislature, apportioning the vote of the State, where the 
evident design of such aportionment was to give one political party 
a representation nearly double that to which it was fairly entitled. 

Both in Indiana and elsewhere, charges of wholesale venality 
are made, and apparently supported by pretty clear evidence. In 
some places, droves of men are said to have been confined during 
the night preceding election day for the purpose of marching them 
to the polls in the morning and voting them like so many cattle. 
Letters alleged to have been written by political managers on 
both sides, have been paraded before the people until there is a 
growing belief in the fact that corruption exists in both parties 
among a large proportion of the voters. 

The size of this so-called floating vote is doubtless much ex¬ 
aggerated. Still it is quite large, and with the narrow margin by 
which either party is able to carry the State, suspicions are 
always cast by those defeated upon the honesty and good faith of 
the result. 

The evils flowing from this corruption are not immediately 
seen; the people finally acquiesce in the result; government goes 
on much as before, and it becomes generally understood that 
each party buys votes, and that the most skillful carries away the 
reward of victory. But this public tolerance of corruption is it¬ 
self the fatal disease. A republican government can stand a 
great deal of evil, and survive and prosper in spite of it; but it can 
not endure a general weakening of the public conscience. 

What, then, is the remedy ? Men may talk about penal 
legislation from now until doomsday. This alone will never ac¬ 
complish the purification of our politics. » We must do something 
to lessen the motive for corruption, and the means by which it is 
to be accomplished. The proposed ballot-reform law will accom¬ 
plish a good deal. Party managers will be slow to purchase the 
floating vote when they can not see it delivered. There are not 
many purchasable voters who can be trusted alone. Still votes will 
be bought, even after the passage of this law. Another remedy 
quite as efficacious, is to remove as far as possible the motive for 
this corruption. In the campaign which has just closed, as well as 
in several which have preceded it, it can not be denied that one of 


12 — 


the most important reasons why large sums of money were ex¬ 
pended upon both sides, was because a great many offices, valua¬ 
ble pecuniarily, and because they are considered positions of honor, 
were depending upon the results of the election. Doubtless some of 
the money spent was contributed by those who believed that they 
had a financial interest on one side or the other in the tariff issue 
involved in the campaign; but the motive of the greater part of 
the corrupt energy expended just before the election, was the hope 
on the one side of acquiring office, and on the other of retaining it. 
Over 100,000 places were held up before the people as the great 
prize of the contest. From these sources came the countless rills 
which went to fill the stream of corruption. Mr. Cleveland him¬ 
self felt that he had to throw over the reform to which his earlier 
administration was pledged, in order to secure his re-nomination ; 
that his political duty required of him an extensive contribution to 
the campaign funds to secure his re-election. Since the election, 
many of those who took part in it on behalf of the winning side, 
have been clamoring for recognition for political services. The 
demands for office are founded not so much on ability to per¬ 
form its duties, as upon claims of political gratitude—for work done 
and money spent to secure the election of the in-coming Adminis¬ 
tration. The suitors who beset this unwilling Penelope, press their 
claims upon the very ground which in most cases ought to lead to 
rejection of them, and it is a question how far such claims can 
be ignored by any President, no matter how pure his intentions, 
so long as it remains a discretionary matter with the Executive. 
Claims of personal and political gratitude will often be found par¬ 
amount to those of State duty. The Administration may realize as 
clearly as anyone that the tendency of this is wrong, but the cur¬ 
rent will be too strcyig to resist, unless the Executive shall him¬ 
self consent to abandon his own discretion in the matter of subor¬ 
dinate non-political appointments, and leave them to be deter¬ 
mined upon the ground of the fitness of the applicant under gen¬ 
eral rules. 

Nothing but the substitution of law for arbitrary discretion 
can remove the abuses which have crept into our public service 
under the spoils system. Let a President act ever so heroically in 
refusing the demand of .the party workers, the effect of his refusal 


— 13 — 


will be temporary. The next Administration will be likely 
to destroy all the good that has been done. It is only by general 
acquiescence in a system which removes subordinate and non-po¬ 
litical offices from liability to change at each election that we can 
hope for reform which will be permanent. This can be done only 
where appointments are controlled by rules. It is within the power 
of the President to extend the present civil service rules to all 
branches of the service. We can not doubt that he must wish to 
relieve himself as much as possible from partisan clamor for office 
by incompetent men. There is no better way to do this than by 
extending the rules as far as possible, and the sooner this is done, 
the more speedy will be the relief. 

When men find that they are not rewarded for services to the 
party by offices which are paid for by the whole people, but that 
their claims depend wholly upon their ability to fill the office 
sought, we shall cease to have political work conducted for mer¬ 
cenary and personal ends. Politicians will work more for principle 
and less for place, and the dangers to our system of government 
from the corrupt use of money and other proper influences at elec¬ 
tions will be greatly lessened. 

i 

Not only have the promises of the in-coming Administration 
been set forth in the platform of the party, but in many respects 
they have been still more explicitly declared in the letter of 
acceptance of the President-elect. He says: “The law regu¬ 
lating appointments to the classified civil service, received my 
support in the Senate in the belief that it opened the way to a 
much-needed reform.” General Harrison then regards the civil 
service act as the mere opening of the way to a reform, to 
which it has not yet been applied. He says: “I still think so, 
and therefore cordially approve the clear and forcible exp.ession 
of the convention upon this subject. The law should have the 
aid of a friendly interpretation, and be faithfully and vigorously 
enforced.” This can not be done if men who are not in favor of 
the law—men who, like Aquilla Jones, say of it that they despise 
it—are appointed to enforce it. The appointment of spoilsmen 
to offices which give them the power of selecting employes in the 
classified service, would be a distinct violation of the principles 
set forth in this letter. If such men are selected for the service 


— 14 — 


of the Government, the President-elect has substantially assured 
us that will be excluded from places which involve the selection 
of employes under this Act. 

The President-elect goes on: “All appointments under it 
should be absolutely free from partisan considerations and influ¬ 
ence.” But this can never be so if those vested with the power 
to make such appointments are so deeply affected by party con¬ 
siderations and influence that their judgment would be affected by 
it in making appointments under the law.- 

The President-elect says further: ‘‘Some extensions of the 
classified list are practicable and desirable.” What these exten¬ 
sions shall be is set forth in the platform of the convention, which 
promises that the spirit and purpose of the Act shall be extended 
to all offices to which it is applicable. “ Further legislation,” says 
General Harrison, “ extending the reform to other branches of the 
service to which it is applicable, would receive my approval.” 
This promise is not of any great importance since legislation al¬ 
ready exists empowering the President to extend civil service rules 
to any branch of the service to which it can be properly applied. 

The President-elect says : “ In appointments to every grade 

and department, fitness, and not party service, should be the essen¬ 
tial and discriminating test, and fidelity and efficiency the only sure 
tenure of office. Only the interests of the public service should 
suggest removals from office. I know the practical difficulties at¬ 
tending the attempt to apply the spirit and purpose of the civil 
service rules to all appointments and removals. It will, however, 
be my sincere purpose, if elected, to advance the reform.” 
He then declares that in spite of his knowledge of the practical 
difficulties, he will advance the reform. He has nowhere indicated 
his disapproval of any part of the platform which has shown the 
means by which it is to be advanced. An extension of the classi- 
fied service to every place to which it can properly apply, must 
therefore be accomplished before the in-coming Administration 
shall have completed its term of office. The spirit and purpose of 
that reform must be applied to every office, high and low, within 
the bestowal of the Executive. In spite of the difficulties, he will 
advance the reform, and the platform to which he has assented, 
has shown the means by which this is to be done. 


i5 


I think I can say for the Indiana Civil Service Reform Asso¬ 
ciation that it intends to apply to the new administration the same 
standard of duty which it applied to the old. While Grover Cleve¬ 
land was President, if we discovered abuses, we laid them, in the 
first place, before the officers by whom they should be remedied. 
If no remedy was applied, we brought them to the notice of the 
Executive, before giving them to the world and inviting popular 
criticism. We shall pursue exactly the same course hereafter. 
There will be not the slightest change of policy or procedure. 

The principles of Civil Service Reform rise above and beyond 
all matters of temporary political expediency. 

Whatever party may hold for the time the reins of power, we 
propose to remain faithful to these salutary and enduring prin¬ 
ciples. 







^EiDrai Association, 


QilQ 




DOCUMENT No. 6. 


Report or the Special Committee Appointed by the President or the 
Indiana Civil Service Reform Association to Examine the 
Working or the Police Department or the City 
or Indianapolis Under Mayor Taggart. 


To the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association: 

Gentlemen —Having been appointed by the President of your Association a 
special committee to investigate the working of the Police Department of the 
City of Indianapolis, I respectfully report as follows: 

In the middle of December, 1899, twenty-one policemen and twelve firemen, 
in the service of the City of Indianapolis, were summarily dismissed from service. 
No charges were preferred against any of these men and they were not given 
trial, but were unceremoniously put out. Suit was brought in the Superior Court 
to test the question of the power of the Board of Safety to discharge the men 
without charge or trial. The only question before the court was the naked one, 
whether the Board of Safety could act except upon formal charges and trial. 
The morals or character of the men were not in issue, but the defense, for the pur¬ 
pose, apparently, of prejudicing the public against the men, and of intimidating 
them, filed an answer containing charges of a serious nature against the private 
character of the men and this was given to the public through the newspapers; 
but such answer was not properly filed and had no connection with the merits of 
the controversy, the motive apparently being to blacken in advance the reputa¬ 
tion of the men, and this act serves as an example of the spirit manifested by the 
city administration from first to last in this disgraceful affair. 

The court held that the men were not properly dismissed and that they could 
be discharged only after formal charges and trial. Afterwards, the Board of 
Safety preferred charges and tried a large number of the men. It appeared that 
as to some of them there were no charges and they were left on the force. As to 
































2 


a large number of the remainder the evidence was of a flimsy character. The 
men were accused of winking, blinking and congregating and they were sus¬ 
pected of not holding in high regard some of their superior officers. There was 
an attempt made to show that some of the men had been guilty of immoral acts 
and the evidence upon this subject, in the main, was given by harlots and the 
criminal classes, whose testimony would be of doubtful value under any circum¬ 
stances and utterly unworthy of belief where, as in this case, these witnesses were 
held in terrorum by the police department, which at all times has the power to 
wreak vengeance upon them. 

The evidence at the trial of the policemen was, as to most of the men and in 
fact as to all who stood trial, entirely insufficient to have convicted them before a 
fair tribunal of any serious neglect of their duties and it certainly was not suffi¬ 
cient^ justify their discharge. Many of the men dismissed were the best men 
on the force, far above the average in intelligence, efficiency and reliability. It 
is too plain for mistake that, with a few exceptions, the men were removed from per¬ 
sonal spite, for political reasons and to make places for favorites. The offenders 
were not the discharged men, but the administration, that first ignored the law, 
and afterwards, being compelled so to do, followed the letter of the law but vio¬ 
lated its spirit and under a legal process accomplished its avowed purpose to get 
rid of good and efficient officers without sufficient cause. 

What has been said of the policemen is largely true of the firemen. As to 
some of them, no charges were preferred and they were left on the force. As to 
others, the evidence was vague and of no consequence. The offenses were trivial 
and the charges paltry. The evidence against both the policemen and firemen 
was, in part, of acts which occurred after they were dismissed, showing that they 
were not originally dismissed for the offenses charged later. In fact, in nearly 
all the cases, the men had never been reprimanded nor called to account for any 
of their misdeeds, though evidence was brought in some cases of alleged offenses 
running back over a period of years. 

This action of the Board of Safety, while peculiarly unjust and cruel to 
many of these men who have given some of their best years to the public service 
and who have thus been deprived of their means of living at a period of their 
lives when it is difficult for them to get other places and who have been cut off 
from the benefit of the pension liberally provided by the tax payers of Indian¬ 
apolis, has at the same time degraded the police and fire forces of the city and 
permanently injured the discipline and morale of the department. The best men 
will not seek these places if they are to be turned out in the manner and upon the 
trifling and insufficient evidence which made the trials of these men a ridiculous 
travesty upon judicial proceedings. It has been stated unofficially, by at least 
one member of the Board of Safety, that the Board would always get rid of any 
man it desired to. This was an open avowal of a conclusion already drawn from 
the official acts of the Board. 

The charter of Indianapolis provides that the Board of Safety shall adopt 
rules for the appointment of the firemen and policemen. The Denny administra¬ 
tion did adopt rules and men were appointed on the force only after a competi¬ 
tive examination conducted according to civil service rules, but since Mr. Tag¬ 
gart has been mayor these rules have not been followed nor have any other rules 
been adopted. The entire effort, so far as one can judge by what has been done, 
has been to make every man working for the city, in high or low places, a Taggart 
man—a subservient tool of the Taggart machine. 


o 

0 


* 


Under Mr. Taggart’s administration it has frequently happened that the 
Police Surgeon has reported a man physically unfit to be a policeman and yet 
some influence has caused the surgeon’s report to he altered and the man 
appointed. It has been repeatedly charged in newspapers, and not once denied, 
that Mayor Taggart himself has caused such changes to he made in order to get 
his favorites on the pay roll. In 1899, the legislature provided a tax should be 
levied upon all city property to create a pension fund to be paid disabled police¬ 
men and firemen. It is of the highest importance, therefore, that no man should 
go on the force who is not physically fit, and the above acts of the city adminis¬ 
tration were unlawful and fraudulent. 

The charter of Indianapolis forbids men on the police and fire forces from 
taking an active part in politics.. The city administration permitted to be levied 
upon policemen and firemen an assessment of twenty dollars a head for the benefit 
of the democratic city campaign in 1899, and the payments of this assessment, in 
some cases, was coerced by threats, and it is needless to say that the money was 
seldom paid voluntarily, but through fear. Not only so, but some of the men 
were assessed for the state and county campaign as well as for the city campaign. 
Richard Herrick was clerk of the Bertillon system for the Board of Safety; he 
was a man of the highest efficiency and. entirely incorruptible. In the last city 
campaign he was asked to go among the policemen and firemen and collect a 
campaign assessment of twenty dollars apiece, but he declined. Soon after the 
election Superintendent Quigley notified him that his resignation was wanted; one 
reason given for Mr. Herrick’s dismissal was his refusal to collect the campaign 
assessment. Another reason given was that Councilman Sam Perrott’s brother 
had to have a place, and in fact, Herrick’s place was given to him. 

During the last city campaign, when Mr. Taggart was running the third suc¬ 
cessive time for Mayor, two patrolmen served at least three weeks each in the 
Democratic campaign committee rooms in citizens’ clothes and at the same time 
drew pay as policemen, and though not present at roll call nor on their beat, were 
properly entered up as present and on duty as policemen. 

The police force has been used as an organization to promote private ends. 
It has been used against certain interests and for other interests. When a move¬ 
ment was on foot in 1899 to have the city grant a thirty-four year franchise to the 
Street Railway Company, there was a strong feeling against the measure and a 
public meeting of those opposing the demands of the street car company was 
called for Tomlinson Hall. The city received the rent for the use of the hall from 
those in sympathy with the meeting. The police always attend public meetings to 
keep order. It will be remembered that at this meeting the street car company 
sent a delegation, which attempted to control the meeting; there was great dis¬ 
order and the meeting was nearly broken up by those who opposed the objects of 
the meeting; but the police, contrary to their custom on such occasion, made no 
effort to preserve order and gave no assistance to those in charge of the meeting 
until there was about to be a personal encounter between some of the parties. It 
transpires that the policemen were instructed by their superior officers not to in¬ 
terfere at that meeting except to prevent personal violence; that as the policemen 
declare, their hands “were tied by the order of the Superintendent” and they 
stood by while the rights of those who called the meeting and hired the hall were 
overridden. In short, the Police Department was in conspiracy with the street 
car company to throttle free speech. 



4 


On another occasion, on a change of venue from this county, there was pend¬ 
ing in Lebanon a civil suit by property owners for damages on account of the al¬ 
leged disorderly management of Kissel’s beer garden in Indianapolis. At roll 
call the names of a large number of policemen were read out and they were or¬ 
dered to be at a certain train to go to Lebanon as witnesses for the defense and 
they were also, at the same time, publicly admonished that the Kissel crowd 
“ have been good friends to us and now we must stand by them.” These men 
were going as witnesses to testify in court. 

In 1898 an organization was made by the leading manufacturers and sellers 
of beer in Indiana for the purpose of raising the price of beer. Those who stood 
out and declined to go into the combination were most of them forced in or 
driven out of business. But still there was independent beer sold in Indianapolis. 
The price of beer was raised one dollar per barrel when the war tax went on, but 
until this combination was formed beer sold at from live to six dollars per barrel. 
The beer trust raised the price to seven dollars and twenty cents. The indepen¬ 
dent beer was sold at the old price. A brewery at Dayton, Ohio, among others, 
continued to sell independent beer at Indianapolis. In order to break down this 
competition the beer trust resorted to the usual method of the trust and shipped 
beer from Indianapolis and sold it at Dayton for four dollars per barrel, though 
the same beer was not sold in Indianapolis for less than seven dollars and twenty 
cents. And yet, in spite of this strong combination, independent beer was largely 
sold in Indianapolis. One man representing Dayton beer supplied fifty saloons. 
It became necessary, therefore, for the beer force to call out reinforcements or the 
beer trust was doomed. This reinforcement was furnished by the police force of 
Indianapolis. This is a strong statement, but it is supported by so many facts 
that there can be no doubt that it is true. 

In January, 1899, the following written order was posted at police head¬ 
quarters : 

Department of Public Safety. 

Indianapolis, Ind., January 23, 1899. 

J. F. Quigley, Superintendent of Police: 

Dear Sir—A t a meeting of the Board of Public Safety held this day the following rule 
was formulated and you are directed to see that it is strictly obeyed : 

Patrolmen must not euter any saloon in the city in uniform, whether on duty or not, 
except in case they are ordered to do so by their superior officers and when’ there is fighting 
or unlawful conduct being permitted iu the saloon that requires their presence in their line 
of duty. Yours very truly, 

Edw ard H. Davis, 

Secretary. 

» 

It had theretofore been the custom of policemen to go into saloons frequently 
and to keep a sharp lookout on such places. It is in some of the saloons that the 
thieves and criminals spend much of their time. It is where burglars spend the 
day and policy playing and gambling is likely to be carried on. In short, in any 
city a policeman would be much hampered in the discharge of his duty if he could 
not go into the saloons. A soldier might as well be told not to go in search of 
the enemy as to tell a police officer that he should not enter a saloon. The object 
of this order, under whatever pretext it was made, was to give the beer trust an 
advantage, as the sequel will show. This order was followed by another order 
that if a saloon-keeper was caught violating the law, he should not be arrested on 
sight, but that a report of the matter should be made to headquarters. These 


5 


orders, bad as they were, applied to all saloons, but it was a proper basis for what 
followed. The saloons were now freed from the old time espionage and it was 
only necessary to single out certain saloons as exceptions. Such selections were 
made. The police were given type-written lists of saloons which were to be 
closely watched. These saloons were to be entered and re-entered and if the law 
was by them violated in the least tittle, the offenders were to be immediately 
arrested, and “run in.” There was to be no reporting of the case without arrest, 
as in other cases. I give here an abstract from the affidavit of one of the patrol¬ 
men : 

Since James F. Quigley became Superintendent of the Police force, a little over two 
years ago, and shortly after the election of 1897, the police force has been systematically used 
to favor certain saloons and beer interests. While the laws against selling liquor on Sundays 
and holidays, and to minors and to drunken men, and after the hours of eleven o’clock at 
night, have not been enforced, as a general rule, yet certain saloons and saloon-keepers were 
designated by Superintendent Quigley as being places and persons who should be vigilantly 
watched and if any violation of the law could be defected in their places or by them, they 
were to be promptly arrested and brought in. In March, 1899, a written list was made out 
of saloons that should be thus watched. 

When I was patrolling District No. 7, bounded on the west by Noble street, on the north 
by New York, on the east by the corporation limits and on the south by the Big Four and 
Pan Handle tracks, there were in that district, at that time, thirty-one saloons; of this number 
twenty-six were known as handling independent or outside beer. The five so-called inde¬ 
pendent saloons were the following: John Heffner, Rural and Washington streets; Charlie 
Stites, Beville and Washington streets; James Madden, Arsenal avenue and Washington 
streets; Charlie Scheffendecker, New York and Davidson streets; Frederick Hinnenkamp, 237 
North Noble street. 

These five saloons were the most orderly and quiet and law-abiding saloons in my dis¬ 
trict and as good and well conducted as any in the city. In March, 1899, I was given by my 
captain, as coming from Superintendent Quigley, a type-written slip, containing said places, 
and the only ones in my district, and instructed to catch the above men, if possible, and if 
necessary, to back-track on them ; that is to say, go through their places and go away for a 
short time, leading them to believe that I would not be there again until my next round, 
but very shortly to come back and go through the place again, and to use every endeavor to 
detect them in the violation of some law or ordinance. 

James Madden, one of these men, told me afterwards that he had changed beer and that 
they were not bothering him any more. Of the twenty-six other saloons on my beat there were 
seven that were constantly violating the law, and I made reports of at least three places 
which I. now recall, where the laws were being violated, but no attention was paid to my 
reports and no prosecutions followed. Shortly before the last city election I was instructed 
to catch Philip Hauffbauer, Hill avenue and Arsenal avenue, if possible, in violation of some 
law, and if we found him open ten minutes after eleven o'clock, to run him in. Anightortwo 
after I received that order I called the attention of Sergt. Lowe to the fact that, and showed him 
on the ground, that the saloon of Jimmie Malloy, across the street from Hauttbauer’s,was then 
and there open and running at twenty minutes past one o’clock in the morning ; and when 
he and I looked in at the window at the time there were three men standing at the bar drink¬ 
ing. I told the Sergeant that we ought to go in and get him. But he said no, it would be 
better to make a report of it. I did make the report and never heard anythingfurtherfrom it. 

Since Mr. Quigley has been superintendent the laws governing saloon-keepers against 
gambling, dice-throwing, policy playing and other like offenses have been enforced only 
spasmodically and irregularly and against certain persons and places, but there has been no 
pretense of enforcing it regularly and systematically and impartially. 

I have seen beer wagons unload beer on Sunday at Maurice Donnelly’s saloon, within 
thirty feet of Superintendent Quigley’s office, and since said saloon has been opened it has 
beeu wide open every Sunday. 

And from the affidavit of another policeman : 

A police officer could not go into saloons in search of criminals or to see whether the 
laws against gambling or against the sale of liquor to minors or other laws were violated. All 
that a thief had to do was to take refuge in a saloon and he was safe from police interference. 
Gambling could be carried on while policemen passed by, not daring to enter. If the police- 


I 


6 


men did their duty in an effort to prevent drunkenness in saloons, in preventing the sale of 
liquor to minors, in preventing gambling in saloons or otherwise interfering with the busi¬ 
ness of saloon-keepers, they were reported by the saloon-keepers to headquarters and the 
policeman would be changed to another beat. Saloon-keepers openly and boldly defied the 
police and told them they did not dare to enforce the law, and if they did meddle with their 
affairs by enforcing the law, they would have them changed to other beats. Such threats 
were not only made, but they were carried out, and the same man who, in defiance of such 
threats attempted to do his duty, would be removed to other beats. Certain favored saloon¬ 
keepers carried ou their business in utter defiance of the policemen and in perfect security 
from prosecution. Gambling in all its forms, and especially policy playing, has been growing 
and increasing in the city during the last four years. No serious effort is made to check it, 
though the places and the operators are, many of them, well known to the officers and men 
of the force. Against certain individuals and agaiust certain places the laws at certain times 
have been enforced with great rigor and harshness, while as against other individuals and 
other places and at other times no attention has been paid to the law and no effort made to 
enforce it. 

And from the affidavit of another patrolman : 

About three weeks last August, I had District No. 2. There were at least fourteen 
Saloons in that district at that time and we were under orders at that time not to enter any 
saloon or drinking place in uniform, or while on duty, so that we did not enter saloons to see 
whether the law was violated and had no way of knowing what was going on in the saloons; 
but I received instructions from my captain as follows: “ I want you to go down and get 
Lyons, saloon-keeper at 410 West Washington street; arrest him for selling on Sunday (it was 
Sunday morning when the instruction was given) apd for violating section three of the 
Nicholson Law; also get Archie Greathouse on Indiana avenue; be sure to get them; I will 
hold you responsible.” I went at once to Lyon’s place and found three men drinking at the 
bar; I arrested him and sent him in. I then went to Greathouse’s place, but he apparently 
had got word that I was coming and I did not find him violating the law. I appeared in po¬ 
lice court the next morning against Lyons; he was there with an attorney, but his case was 
never called for trial so far as I know; I was never called as a witness, at any rate. The follow¬ 
ing or second day after that, 1 was called into the office after the roll call by my captain and 
told to “ lay off” of Lyons, that he was all right now. 

And from the affidavit of another patrolman : 

Patrick Ward was a saloon-keeper on Senate avenue. I am informed that he endeavored 
to negotiate with Maurice Donnelly, of the Terre Haute Brewing Company, for beer, but they 
could not agree upon a price; that said Ward then purchased beer in Chicago and supplied 
his own and other saloons and also set up-bottling works. I was then given a slip at roll call 
with said Ward’s name on it and I was then called into the office and was told by the officers 
in charge to get Ward in any possible Avay. This was in the fall of 1899 and preceding the 
election. Preceding the same election I received similar slips and similar instruction as to 
the following saloon-keepers: B. Kauffman & Sons, 382 West Washington street; Archi¬ 
bald Greathouse, 214 Indiana avenue; Charles A. Lyon, 410 West Washington street; Myer 
Levy, 420 West Washington street; James Moxley,302 West Washington street; James Nichols, 
Indiana avenue. These orders could not have been based upon the ground of disorderly sa¬ 
loons, because, as a general rule, the spotted saloons are run just as quietly as the saloons 
not spotted and in fact, more quietly. As to James Moxley, after a few days I was told to give 
him no further trouble and to keep out of his place. 

And from the affidavit of another patrolman : 

During last summer I was called upon by my captain and gh T en a list of some eight or 
ten saloon-keepers that were to be carefully Avatched, and if caught in the violation of any 
laAV, Avhatever theyAvere, to be forthwith arrested and brought in. Among the saloon-keep¬ 
ers so singled out was Fred. Wachstetter, Indiana avenue, Pat Ward, North Senate aA'enue, 
GustaA T e Pink, Indiana avenue and West street, Jake Roller, Senate avenue and Washington 
street. I caught Wachstetter and he Avas arrested. Wachstetter’s place Avas on the corner of 
two streets, and on each of the other three corners there was at the same time a saloon. 
Wachstetter’s place was no more disorderly and law-breaking than the other three places, 
but the other three places Avere not molested or inspected, and Avliile the laAvs governing 
saloon-keepers and gambling, Avere, as a rule, not enforced, certain places Avere singled out 
and vigilantly and continuously watched, so that the proprietors could be arrested. 


7 


The places thus singled out were, as is shown, among the quietest and best 
places of the kind in the city and their offense was not in violating the law, be¬ 
cause other saloons were violating the law at the same time openly and publicly. 
At the very time these men were being hunted and “laid for” there was a saloon 
run wide open within the shadow of the Police Headquarters. This place was 
constantly open after hours and open on Sunday and beer wagons openly drew 
up and unloaded beer there on Sunday and the police officers in going ont with 
these slips passed by the door of this saloon and the Superintendent of Police 
passed the same every time he went to his office; and yet it was not molested. 
The reason was, it is owned and operated by a member of the beer trust. 

A group of saloon and barrel house keepers bought outside beer; they were 
arrested and harrassed for offenses that were overlooked in the saloons handling 
trust beer. They were threatened with the enforcement of the pure food law on 
account of the bad whiskey it was claimed they handled. 

What was the result? Simply that the independent saloon keepers surren¬ 
dered. Did they obey the law better? Not at all. They bought peace by shut¬ 
ting off the independent beer and by buying the trust beer. Their offenses were 
forgiven, and whereas, when they bought beer in the open market the police 
“ laid on ” them ; when they bought only trust beer the police “ laid off ” them. 

The man who had fifty customers for Dayton beer, among whom were the 
places named above, Charles Stites, dames Madden, Charlie Scheffendecker and 
Frederick Hinnenkamp, lost all his customers, and, whereas, before the city 
administration took up arms in the beer war he had a flourishing business; after 
that his market was ruined, he closed his business and his place is now idle. 

The barrel house keepers became frightened and had to let go of the Chicago 
beer and buy from the trust, so that the traffic in independent beer was almost 
entirely stopped by the aid of the police department. The beer trust not only 
shut off competition by the assistance of the police department, but it, or some of 
its prominent members, seem to control the collection of license fees due the city. 
One saloon on West Washington street was open about five months and never 
took out any license, but paid seven dollars per week to the Terre Haute Brewing 
Company for license. The city has a license inspector whose business it is to see 
that no saloon is run without license, but in this case, at least, the brewery col¬ 
lected one hundred and forty-five dollars solely, as shown by its receipts, for 
license, but no license was issued and no money was paid to the city. 

These matters have nothing to do with the ordinary beer question nor with 
any controversy about how far the State should regulate the liquor traffic. Thejr 
have to do with the impartial administration of the law, which is a fundamental 
principle of government, and the astounding lengths to which this city adminis¬ 
tration has used the police department to aid a trust, organized to crush out 
competition, must shock the sense of any one who cares about free government. 
It is the same thing as has prevailed so largely in New York City where black¬ 
mail was collected from law breakers and when license to do business was granted 
by and the prices therefor was paid to the Tammany Society and not to the city. 

The Police Department which pursued with relentless fury the saloons using 
independent beer, has given greater latitude to gambling and policy playing; 
the old system of granting indulgences has been revived by this department; 
those who stand in with the administration are permitted to violate the law. This 
is especially true of a form of gambling known as policy playing, which is carried 
on largely among poor people. Some instances have come to light where the 


8 


Police Superintendent has been notified of the persons and places where and by 
whom the games are carried on in which husbands and sons were dissipating the 
money necessary for the support of their families and where wives and children 
in distress have appealed to the police department, The only result of such 
notice or appeals appears to have been a mild admonition by the Superintendent 
to the operators “to be more careful.” The order quoted above requiring patrol¬ 
men to keep out of saloons has given a free hand to policy players, crap shooters 
and gamblers generally and it is a notorious fact that these games have flourished 
under this administration with the apparent approval of the police department. 
I quote from the affidavit of Charles II. Thurston, made January 5, 1900: 

In the last of January or the first of February, 1899, I played three numbers in a policy 
game conducted by Ollie Lanham in the old Sentinel Building, corner of Meridian and Cir¬ 
cle streets, in Indianapolis. These numbers were officially reported to me as having won. 
Ed. Foil! was the carrier in connection with the game. On receiving this report I went up to 
the headquarters of the game to get the twenty dollars which was due upon the numbers. I 
saw Ollie Lanham and he refused to pay, claiming those numbers had not been played. I 
told Lanham I would report the matter to Superintendent Quigley and he answered, “See 
Quigley and be damned ; we don’t care anything about Quigley.” I then reported the mat¬ 
ter to Quigley and he asked which place it was and I told him. He then said: “ I’ll see Ol¬ 
lie about it and you come back in a few days.” In a few days I went back to Quigley and he 
said, “ I haven't had time to see Ollie yet, but you go over there and tell him I said he had 
better pay you.” I gave Quigley’s message to Ollie Lanham and he told me to go to hell, that 
he wasn’t going to pay it. 

’On February 24, 1900, one of the city papers contained the following item : 

It is being remarked by citizens that the policy sharks are not the only persons in Indi¬ 
anapolis who seem to have immunity from arrest. The peddlers of lottery tickets make their 
rounds regularly and have established agencies. It is well understood that the lotteries take 
several thousand dollars out of Indianapolis every month. This was the way Royal C. Ham¬ 
mer, one of the lottery agents, flaunts his business before the people of the city through the 
city directory, just issued, in black type: “Hammer, Royal C., General State Agent Gulf Coast 
Artificial Ice Co., Mexican International Baled Hay Co., Santo Domingo and Nicaragua Mari¬ 
time, International and Interoceau Oriental and Occidental Canal Steamship and Dock Co.” 

CRArS AND POKER. 

Now and then the police get after John Woodard for selling a few lottery tickets, and in 
looking for him they always fail to see others. Within the last week, from all accounts, sev¬ 
eral new crap games have been opened in the city, and the poker games and other forms of 
gambling are running uninterrupted. 

It is the testimony of men who get around that the gamblers seem to understand that 
they are to have things their own way from this on. 

For years, with a brief interval, a horse race betting room was conducted at 
the corner of two alleys just off Washington street and North Illinois street. It 
was a notorious gambling pest of the worst kind, but the police ignored the exist¬ 
ence of the room and it was claimed there was no law for shutting it up. Wil¬ 
liam Tron managed the place; he fell out with the Taggart administration and 
opposed the re-election of Mayor Taggart in 1899. Immediately after the elec¬ 
tion Tron was notified that he must shut up his place. He did shut it up at 
once and it has since been closed. Why was this place closed after it had been so 
long run in the same identical room and manner? The answer readily suggested 
is that it was closed to punish William Tron for opposing the election of Taggart. 

The Charter of Indianapolis has been in operation for nine years. It was 
intended to and does place in the hands of the Mayor of the city complete con¬ 
trol of the administration of all the laws and the control of all executive depart¬ 
ments of the city government. Good or bad government in the city, therefore, 


9 




is dependent upon the mayor. In this view the mayor has used his large powers 
in a despotic manner to favor his friends and allies. He has scourged some law¬ 
breakers and others equally guilty he has caressed. He has violated the charter 
in dismissing thirty-three members of the police force and fire department at one 
time without charges or trial. He has since conducted a mock trial of the same 
men and re-discharged a large number of good and efficient men without cause. 
He has put men on the police force in violation of the rules for their appointment. 
He has permitted gambling and policy playing to flourish in the city contrary 
to law. 

Indianapolis , March 8, igoo. HARRY J. MILLIGAN. 


After the foregoing report was made r Mayor Taggart had prepared and given 
to the newspapers an interview which contained a large mass of irrevelent matter 
in the nature of personal abuse of your committee, and it contained little else. 

The interview did point out one error in the report; it was a trivial mistake 
as to a name and it does not lessen the force of the incident as an illustration of 
the use of the police department for private ends and personal favorites. 

The Mayor says: 

The utter ignorance of Mr. Milligan as to the subject about which he is making a report 
is illustrated in his statement concerning the “ Kissel case,” which, he says, was tried at 
Lebanon, and at which the policemen are said to have testified. The Kissel case was heard 
at Noblesville and no policemen testified in the case at all. 

This accurate and truthful gentleman evidently refers to the Tron case, which was tried 
at Lebanon, at which some policemen were witnesses. But he did not care to mention the 
Tron case as the correct one, for that would not consist with another part of his story that 
Tron opposed Taggart’s re-election and that in return Taggart closed Tron’s pool-room. In 
order to make a show of consistency, he deliberately placed the Kissel case at Lebanon and 
ignored the fact that Tron had a case at all. 

Mr.' 1 Taggart is right in one minor particular. The case at Lebanon was 
nominally against Tron, but the real party in interest was the Terre Haute Brew¬ 
ing Company, a very active member of the beer trust and a prime favorite with 
the Taggart administration and the owner of “ Fairbank.” Fairbank is a beer 
garden adjoining the Kissel place. The suit was brought by citizens living and 
owning property near Fairbank, alleging that the place was conducted in a dis¬ 
orderly manner. "William Tron was superintendent merely and the paper 
defendant, but the Brewing Company was the interested party and it was con- 
ducting the defense. 

When this case came on for trial, the names of a large number of officers and 
men were read out at police roll call and they were ordered to report at the Union 
Station, where they would be provided with tickets to go to Lebanon to testify in 
the Fairbank case. They were, at the same time, publicly and officially told that 
“these people have been good friends to us, and now we must stand by them.” 

Mayor Taggart is entitled to the correction as to the name of the law suit and 
it is made. 

Mayor Taggart speaking further, says: 

I repeat that gambling has been driven from the public places and is carried on, if at all, 
in private and secluded rooms. * * * Indianapolis is one of the best governed cities in the 
Union. It is freer from vice and crime than any other city of its size * * * one word more 


10 


% 


on the subject of gambling. Mr. Milligan has declared that games of all kinds are in prog¬ 
ress * * * let him be subpoened next Monday morning before the grand jury. If he 
knows as to the truth of these charges, let indictments be returned. If he does not know, let 
him stand forth as a slanderer of the city in which he lives. 

These are the words of the Mayor. Here are the facts as they are: Since 
March 10, and within two weeks after these words were spoken, the grand jury, 
without the aid or suggestion of your committee, has returned 318 indictments for 
gambling and policy playing. Within this period one man has been shot and 
killed by highwaymen on one of the principal and central streets of the city. 
Barn burning is so common that it excites little attention. 

The following item appeared in the Sunday Journal of March 19: 

Captain John Fanning, of Truck 5, West Indianapolis, has been suspended on charges of 
intoxication and conduct unbecoming a fireman. It is alleged that at the Cones factory fire 
the other night, Assistant Chief Ernst found Fanning in an intoxicated condition and sus¬ 
pended him. Fanning, it is claimed, abused Ernst and then went to his company’s fire 
house. Chief Barrett, accompanied by Chairman Roth, of the Board of Safety, and Mr. 
McMillan, of the Board, visited Fanning and suspended him. Fanning became very abusive 
toward Roth and told the latter he would be on the fire force when Roth was shoveling coal. 
Fanning’s record shows he has been dismissed from the department for intoxication, but was 
reinstated, it is said, through a pull. Other firemen claim that Fanning has been guilty of 
gross misconduct, but his pull kept him in the department. 

This is the record made and being made from day to day by Mayor Taggart. 
It is Mayor Taggart who is injuring the City of Indianapolis. He, it is, who has 
taken the highest office in the gift of the people of Indianapolis and has debased 
it for private ends. He can not hide behind the city so that the shafts aimed at 
him will strike, not him, but it. It is the Mayor of Indianapolis and not another 
who is responsible for the dark record, only a small part of which is given in this 
report. He will be judged by his record, not by his high sounding and mislead¬ 
ing declarations. 

HARRY J. MILLIGAN. 

March 24 , /poo. 





DOCUMENT NO. 7. 


Report of the Special Committee Appointed by tiie President of the 
Indiana Civil Service Reform Association to Examine and 
Report upon the Facts Concerning the Filling 
of Certain Positions in the Indian¬ 
apolis Postoffice. 


To the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform Association : 

Some weeks since, the public press of Indianapolis contained statements that 
the positions of Auditor, Cashier and Bookkeeper in the Indianapolis Postoffice 
were filled by the appointments of favorites of the United States Senators from 
Indiana and the Representative from the Seventh Indiana District. It was 
further charged that these positions were created for the friends of the Senators 
and the Representative, and in addition that a Private Secretary was appointed 
for the Postmaster, though there was no need of such an officer nor had the Post¬ 
master asked for a Private Secretary. 

After examination, the following facts were ascertained: 

1. Frank J. Richmann, Senator Fairbanks’s Private Secretary, was 
named by this Senator two years ago as Cashier. The appointment was 
made without a request from Postmaster Hess for such an officer. The salary 
is $2,200, which is $200 more than that of the Assistant Postmaster. His 
duties consist mainly of work formerly performed by the Assistant Post¬ 
master. The salary is out of proportion to the work done when compared 
with that of the Assistant Postmaster, and the injustice is manifest. The 
position is not in the classified service- The place has been used to reward a 
party worker out of the public funds. 

2. Joseph E. Haskell was appointed as Auditor by request of Repre¬ 
sentative Overstreet, about two years ago, without request from Postmaster 
Hess for such an employee. He draws $1,200 a year, and is not in the classi¬ 
fied service. So far as known, he had no experience as auditor, and his work 
in that capacity occupies not ipore than one-sixth of his time. Five days in 
the week, four and one-half hours a day, he does work belonging to em¬ 
ployees in the classified service. This appointment was made to reward 
party and personal service. 

3. George J. LaNgsdale, the father-in-law of Senator Beveridge, was ap¬ 
pointed to the postal service in Porto Rico on April 15, 1899, without exam¬ 
ination, on the “temporary” plan. He was transferred to a clerkship in 
the Money Order bureau at the New York Postoffice on July 2, 1900. He 
was placed in the New York office, and in the classified service without exam- 


































ination. In New York he received a salary of $1,200. On February 10, 
1901, he was appointed bookkeeper at the Indianapolis Postoffice at a salary 
of $1,700. He is not a trained accountant; there is no work for him to do. 
He is sixty-two years old and in poor health. He is thus, at the behest of 
Senator Beveridge, kept at the public expense, while experienced men are 
held back. 

4. Charles N. Elliott, Secretary of the Republican County Committee 

and an active political worker, reported for duty on or about February 10, 
1901, as the Postmaster’s Private Secretary. The place in this office was 
created, and the appointment made, at the request of Senator Beveridge. 
Mr. Elliott, much to his credit, declined to take the place when informed at 
the office that there was no need of such an employee. The Postmaster has 
a Clerk and Stenographer, a young woman, who is in the classified service, 
and receives $700 a year. 

It is well known that the Postoffice, for several years, has been in need of 
help in the delivery and stamp departments. Postmaster Hess asked for such 
help, and the public press has often told of this need under the present Post¬ 
master. So far their requests have not been complied with, while high-salaried 
men have been given positions which the service did not demand. Whenever the 
positions of Auditor, Cashier, Bookkeeper and Private Secretary become necessary, 
they should be in the classitied service, and thus open to experienced employees. 
At present such employees are not anxious to hold these positions, since they may 
be removed at thebehesjt of the politicians. If said positions are to be appointive, 
then the Postmaster, who is responsible for the management of the office, should 
name the occupants. It cannot be said that, because they are, in a measure, 
positions of trust, therefore they should be outside of the classified service. If 
these are offices of trust, so much the more should experienced men hold them. 
There would be an incentive to work Up to such positions of trust on the part of 
all ambitious men in the Postoffice. Merit alone would decide who should hold 
such positions. What else should decide? Public service demands the employ¬ 
ment of this principle of the merit system, much more than private enterprises, 
positions in which are held because of proven capabilities. Thus public business 
is, at present, placed on a lower plane than private. 

The people’s business should be conducted on the highest plane, regardless 
of party and personal service to the politicians. 

DEMARCHUS C. BROWN, 

Indianapolis, Indiana, March 2, 1901. Special Committee. 


Indianapolis, Indiana, March 4, 1901. 

To the Honorable William McKinley , President of the United States : 

By direction of the Executive Committee of the Indiana Civil Service Reform 
Association I herewith transmit to you the report of the special committee ap¬ 
pointed to seek information regarding the filling of certain positions in the In¬ 
dianapolis Postoffice. The Executive Committee submits for your consideration 
the following conclusions: 


Gift 

AieecifttTor 



That the duties which would naturally pertain to the positions in ques¬ 
tion are not beyond the reach of a good percentage of the two hundred em¬ 
ployees of the office and if such positions were to be established common 
fairness required that these employees be allowed to compete for them. 

That the manner in which the four appointments concerned were made 
was not for the good of the service nor did it even regard the boasted doc¬ 
trine that the head of an office should choose his subordinates for whom he is 
responsible; but it was an adroit method of evading the civil service law and 
wronging the men who have obtained subordinate positions under it. 

The fact that in three of the positions, Auditor, Private Secretary and 
Bookkeeper, the duties indicated by the titles cannot be found for the ap¬ 
pointees to perform, proves that whoever was concerned in these appoint¬ 
ments, had no regard for the public service. 

That the necessity of the fourth position, Cashier, is at least doubtful, 
tbe duties having before been performed acceptably by the Assistant Post¬ 
master. To assign part of his duties to a new man at a higher salary is 
prima facie evidence that the good of the service is disregarded. 

That there were no duties whatever for the Private Secretary appointed 
at a salary of $1,200. The fact that the appointee had the manliness to 
recognize that the duties of that place were already efficiently performed by 
a young woman stenographer and typewriter acting under the civil service 
law at a salary of $700, and that he therefore refused to insist upon his 
place, entitles him to the thanks of the public. 

That for a Senator to have his father-in-law, sixty-two years of age and 
in bad health, appointed, without competition, to a place in the postal serv¬ 
ice in Porto Rico, and then have him transferred to New York, and then to 
this Postoffice as a member of the classified service, is a maneuver to under¬ 
mine the civil service law and it is helping to load the service with useless 
timber and it should everywhere arouse indignation. 

That the recommendation of Senators and Representatives of men for 
appointments is almost universally selfish, misleading, unreliable and vicious. 
That in effect it usurps the duties which the President, as chief of the civil 
service, is sworn to perform. That the whole system should be broken up. 
That all legislative servants of the people should be made to depend, for 
tbeir positions, upon their ability and efficiency as legislators and should be 
cut off from maintaining themselves by quartering their political dependents 
and relatives upon the public service. 

That the power to cut off Senators and Representatives from meddling 
with the civil service is in the hands of the President ; and if he fails to ex¬ 
ercise that power, he so far fails in the duties which the Constitution requires 
him to perform. Very respectfully, 

LUCIUS B. SWIFT, 

President Indiana Civil Service Reform Association. 



y> 



































